The internet of things as a tool for sustainability : a qualitative study toward the institutional entrepreneurship process in emerging fields

(1)

THE INTERNET OF THINGS AS

A TOOL FOR SUSTAINABILITY

A qualitative study toward the institutional

entrepreneurship process in emerging fields

AMY SLOOTWEG (11022817)

MSc. In Business Administration- Innovation and Entrepreneurship Track (6314M0254Y.S2.)

First supervisor: Dr. Y. Song

(2)

- 1 -

Statement of Originality

This document is written by Student Amy Slootweg who declares to take full responsibility for the contents of this

document.

I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the

text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for

(3)

- 2 - Abstract

The literature on the institutional process in emerging fields is considerably limited. For new fields to develop and in order for them to avoid losing their momentum it is important to study their process and develop a new theory. As an example, by helping the new Internet of Things trend to grow it will contribute to diminishing the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere.The objective of this paper is to create

a new framework that describes the phase from theory to implementation of the institutional entrepreneurship process in emerging fields that can be applied to the case of the Internet of Things. This is a qualitative multiple- case study using existing case literature and multiple interviews with experts in the field who were closely involved in the establishment of their new fields. The research resulted in four main conclusions which are important for the implementation of a new emerging field: vision, external support, existing routines and proof of technology. The Internet of things needs to consider all four aspects when implementing the new sector, but all to their own degree. The most important thing is to prove that the technology works and it is profitable.

Keywords: Institutional Entrepreneurship, Sustainability, Emerging Fields, The Internet of Things, The BioBased Economy, The offshore wind energy sector

(4)

- 3 -

Acknowledgements

I would like to use this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who supported me in writing this thesis and throughout the rest of my education. First, I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Yang Song for trusting me to make the right decisions regarding my thesis and providing me with helpful guidance and feedback when needed, but foremost for giving me the motivation I needed for writing this thesis.

Secondly, I would like to thank all the people from the BioBased Economy and the Offshore wind energy sector who took the time to share their valuable knowledge with me. It was nice to feel welcome in both those sectors and without their support this thesis would not have been possible.

Thirdly, I am grateful for my parents who have always supported me in every decision I made and are continuing to do so. I would like to take this opportunity to thank them for all the possibilities I got in life so far and they are encouraging me to create for myself.

Lastly, I am thankful for the support of Harcourt and Ileen who were able to help me bring my thesis to a higher lever thanks to their knowledge and support.

Thank you, Amy

(5)

- 4 - Contents Statement of originality 1 Abstract 2 Acknowledgements 3 Contents 4 List of tables 6 1. Introduction 7 2. Literature review 10

2.1 Sustainability and the Internet of Things 10

2.2 Sustainability and Institutional Entrepreneurship 11

2.3 Developed fields versus emerging fields 13

2.4 Institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields 15

3. Existing case literature 21

3.1 Vision 21

3.2 External support 22

3.3 Existing routines 23

4. Methods 25

4.1 Data collection 25

4.1.1 Existing case literature 25

4.1.2 Case selection 25

4.1.3 Interviews 26

4.2 Data analysis 27

5. Cases 29

5.1 Cases 29

(6)

- 5 -

5.1.2 The offshore wind energy sector 30

6. Results 31

6.1 Vision 31

6.1.1 The BioBased Economy 31

6.1.2 The Offshore wind energy sector 32

6.2.2 Offshore wind energy sector 34

6.3 Existing routine 35

6.3.2 Offshore wind energy sector 36

6.4 Proven technology 37

6.4.1 The BioBased Economy and the offshore wind energy sector 38

7. Discussion 39

7.1 Vision 39

7.3 Existing routine 41

7.4 Proof of technology 42

7.5 Main research question 43

8. Recommendations and limitations 44

8.1 Recommendations 44

8.2 Limitations and future research 45

9. Conclusions 47

(7)

- 6 -

List of tables and figures

Figures

Figure 1: Stage of institutional entrepreneurship 20

Figure 2: Focus research 20

Figure 3: Stage 3 of the institutional entrepreneurship process in emerging fields 21

Tables

Table 1: Interview topics and subtopics 28

Table 2: The BioBased Economy vision quotes 33

Table 3: The offshore wind energy sector vision quotes 34

Table 4: The BioBased Economy External support quotes 35

Table 5: The offshore wind energy sector External support quotes 36

Table 6: The BioBased Economy Existing routines quotes 37

Table 7: The offshore wind energy sector Existing routines quotes 38

(8)

- 7 -

1. Introduction

Global warming and the state of the earth remains a topic of debate amongst scietists, business people and politicians alike. The current predictions show a six degrees increase in the temperature of the earth by the end of the century which will influence the earth immensely (IPCC, 2013). The increased scarcity of resources in combination with a growing population strengthen the effects of global warming (United Nations, 2013). However, there is a growing awareness that something needs to be done and that part of this responsibility lies in the business world. A new trend which has the potential to accelerate the trend of sustainability is the Internet of Things. The Internet of Things has the potential to reduce CO2 emissions with smart technological solutions and can contribute to the goals established in the Paris Climate Agreement of 2016, the main goal being to limit the temperature increase to 1,5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.

Technology cannot exist in a vacuum, it requires a defined institutional space with rules that guide the operational process (Dosi, 1982; Rosenberg, 1982; Van de Ven & Garud, 1994). Common standards create a framework from which product markets operate (Garud et. al., 2002). The Internet of Things is an emerging field where institutions, norms, and regulations have yet to be formed. To establish those fundamental policies, standards and norms institutional entrepreneurship is necessary (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2010). “Institutional Entrepreneurs are actors who leverage resources to create new or transform existing institutions” (DiMaggio, 1998; Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007; Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004; Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009). There is a lack of research exploring the nature of institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields, especially the kind of research that looks at the implementation process of building new institutions.

The main body of literature investigating institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields focuses on the role of the actors that shapes an institution. The main focus of this stream of literature is on the symbolic and political aspect and the attribution of meaning (Garud, et. al., 2007). The

(9)

- 8 -

research concerns topics such as how actors gain and maintain legitimacy (Hughes, 1983; Battilana et. al., 2009) to build institutions and how a clear vision is created to bring stakeholders together (Battilana et. al., 2009; Garud, Jain & Kumaraswamy, 2002). The latter is researched by institutional entrepreneurship scholars, but is also closely related to the field of social movements (Shepherd & Patzelt, 2010; Bartley, 2007). Secondly, researchers from various fields attempted to bring agency and structure together (Garud et. al, 2007). This stream of research addresses the complex relationship between the embeddedness of an agent within a structure whilst creating a different structure. Structure is both the outcome and the medium of social practice (Sewell, 1992). However, in this field of research the main focus is on the role of the agent rather than the process. There is a stream of research where the process is determined, but here the focus lies on reshaping existing organizational fields (Trist, 1983; Marcus & Anderson, 2010; DiMaggio & Powell, 1983) and not on the development of new emerging fields.

The exact process of institutional entrepreneurship in an emerging field leading up to institutions remains mostly neglected (Garud, et. al., 2002). It is important to develop a richer understanding of the process to avoid new initiatives from losing momentum and failing (Bartley, 2007). It can take a long period of time before a new field takes off while at the same time new fields lose momentum quickly (Marcus & Anderson, 2010) due to this paradox it is important to be aware of how to overcome this challenge. Researchers that envelop themselves into this process, mostly focus on the initiation phase but do not dive further into the materialization phase. Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) propose a framework with stages of institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields that includes all elements; from bridging stakeholders to theorizing new practices and implementing them. However, their theory is based solely on one case study. To bridge the gap in research and to understand how the Internet of Things can go from a theoretical concept to an implemented practice, this thesis will focus on the phase of theorization to implementing practices.

(10)

- 9 -

“How do institutional entrepreneurs proceed from theorizing new practices to implementing those

new practices? And how can this be applied to sustainable entrepreneurship and the Internet of Things?”

First, the relationship between sustainability and the Internet of Things and between sustainability and institutional entrepreneurship are discussed. Then, the difference between emerging and established fields are analyzed, before moving on to the research on institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields. Based on the literature propositions, it will be established which of these will be tested with qualitative research methods. After the results and the discussion, the results will be analyzed on how they can be used to benefit the Internet of Things.

(11)

- 10 -

2. Literature review

In this section the literature on sustainability, the Internet of things and institutional entrepreneurship is analyzed and linked to each other. It is explored how the Internet of Things can help to make the world more sustainable and the possible role of institutional entrepreneurship in creating the necessary framework. Lastly, the relatively new and unexplored field of institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields will be discussed. The Internet of Things can be categorized as an emerging field and institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields differs from institutional entrepreneurship in developed fields.

2.1SUSTAINABILITY AND THE INTERNET OF THINGS

Since 2010, the interest for sustainable entrepreneurship has steadily increased (Google.com/trends). A growing body of entrepreneurs realizes that not only big corporations and the government are responsible for the environment and the earth, but that small companies can add to the solution as well. Shepherd and Patzelt (2010, p. 37) define sustainable entrepreneurship as “being focused on the preservation of nature, life support, and community in the pursuit of perceived opportunities to bring into existence future products, processes, and service for gain, where gain is broadly construed to include economic and non-economic gains to individuals, the economy and society”. By acting on market failures, sustainable entrepreneurs eliminate barriers to the efficient functioning of markets and move it to a more efficient state (Dean & McMullen (2007). As a result environmental impacts are deduced and the market becomes more sustainable. In addition, a better understanding of the environment is created.

A second growing trend is the Internet of Things. It is expected that in 2020 there will be fifty billion internet connected devices integrated in our daily lives and the economy (The Internet of Things

(12)

- 11 -

Business Index, 2013). Both consumers and businesses start to integrate the Internet of Things in their daily routines. Consumers rely more and more on technology for convenience, to optimize machines and to self-monitor (Wilson et al., 2015). Companies use it for automation and control, analyzing data to make processes more efficient and to optimize resource consumption (Chui, Löffler and Roberts, 2010). The Internet of Things can support the mission for a more sustainable planet.

While new technology increases the demand for energy it simultaneously has the potential to abolish five times the carbon emissions it produces (The Internet of Things Business Index, 2013; OECD, 2000). According to the OECD (Berkhout & Hertin, 2001) the Internet of Things influences the environment in three ways, both positive and negative. First order effects concern the direct production related effects on the environment, the production and use of the products have a negative effect on energy and resource use. Second order effects, are the indirect effects the Internet of Things has on the environment such as the ability to monitor processes and make them more energy and resource efficient, leading to a more efficient supply chain and dematerialization. The third order impact relates to the indirect impact on the environment by the stimulation of consumption, creating revenue for companies, while simultaneously positively changing people’s lifestyles.

On one hand, producing Internet of Things products creates waste and increases consumption. On the other hand, it has the potential to restructure the economy into a more efficient and less wasteful one. In addition to educating consumers about environmentally friendly lifestyles, the positive impact on the environment is expected to be much greater than the initial negative consequences for the environment. Plus, the Internet of Things can create economic gain for companies by creating new revenue streams and streamlining processes. Technology can add to making business processes more sustainable and energy efficient (Malhotra, 2013). The Internet of Things has the ability to simultaneously contribute to a more sustainable plant and create economic gain for companies by using a sustainable entrepreneurship approach. The Internet of Things can be an instrument for making a more sustainable planet and economy. Sustainability and the Internet of

(13)

- 12 -

Things should not be considered as two separate trends, but as two things that enhance each other. The Internet of Things can be used as a tool for sustainability, however the Internet of Things is still at the start of its development. It can take very long for new fields to establish and there is a substantial risk of losing momentum. To accelerate this process and avoid losing momentum understanding the institutional entrepreneurship process is crucial.

2.2. Institutional Entrepreneurship

Institutional entrepreneurship can reshape the fundamental nature of policies, standards and norms that define and encourage sustainable practices (Buysse and Verbeke, 2003). “Institutional Entrepreneurs are actors who leverage resources to create new or transform existing institutions” (DiMaggio, 1998; Garud, Hardy, & Maguire, 2007; Maguire, Hardy, & Lawrence, 2004; Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009). An organizational field is the intersection of relations and meaning (Bartley, 2007). Institutional Entrepreneurs have the ability to create a whole new system of meaning that connects disparate entities together to create a new emerging field (DiMaggio, 1998). The role of the Institutional Entrepreneur can be seen as shaping a whole new system by defining its boundaries, legitimizing practices and bringing stakeholders together (Scott, 1994). Institutional change with a more structural goal includes the goal of institutional entrepreneurship to link the market and society perspective (Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). They stir up collective action and think out strategies that establishes a stable sequence of interactions between organizations that constitutes a new entity, a new field, with associated institutions (Aldrich & Fiol, 1994). What constitutes such a new system of meaning and relations?

An institutionalized system includes institutionalized norms, standards, public policies and governmental regulations (Peters et. al., 2011). Norms are “acceptable standards of behavior within a group that are shared by the group’s members” (Robbins & Judge, 2013). Norms are informal and intangible and form over time, whereas public policies and governmental regulations are more official

(14)

- 13 -

and tangible and might even be enforceable by law. Standards are in the middle and can go either way. Thus, a new system constitutes both formal and informal rules that guide the behavior of entities navigating within the new field. Institutionalized rules, norms, standards and public policies increase homogeneity and legitimacy within the field (Meyer & Rowan, 1977).

Institutions are products of human schemas, norms, and regulations that enable and constrain the behavior of social actors and make life meaningful and predictable (Hargrave & van de Ven, 2006; North, 1990; Powell & DiMaggio, 1991; Scott, 2001). Those institutions are necessary to shape common standards and to offer a framework within which product- markets can operate (Garud et. al., 2002). Imposing a structure on an emerging field produces clarity and establishes a playing field within which the new entrepreneurs have to play by the rules. However, standards can have enabling just as well as constraining effects as they are often forged through cooperation among competitors (Garud, et. al., 2002). This means that partial agreements come into existence between opposing parties with diverging interests and stakes. This can result in tension, especially when intertemporal inconsistencies develop. Therefore, new standards need to be closely examined to make sure they serve the right purpose The political process that institutional Entrepreneurship constitutes further complicates reaching productive new standards (Garud, et. al., 2007). In addition, the literature is concerned with the paradoxical role of the agent in forming new structures as the agent is engulfed in the current structure (Garud, et. al., 2007). However, this is less of a concern for new emerging fields, since there is no “old” structure. It is important to establish the difference between an emerging field and a developed field.

2.3 Developed fields versus emerging fields

An emerging field is a field where there is a common interest with new technology or rules that shows promise for institutionalization, but at the beginning is highly fragmented and has no established institutions, norms, or regulations (Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004; Lawrence,

(15)

- 14 -

2007).The Internet of Things trend, although existing since the 1990’s, only recently started to gain real interest (www.google.com/trends). The potential impact is starting to be recognized by companies and the government, but there are no clear regulations and regulatory bodies at the moment. Nowadays there is a hands- off approach (Meek, 2012). There is a lack of standards, norms and guiding institutions in the field so far. Governments start to show an interest, but are still wrapping their heads around the concept rather than actively regulating issues such as privacy, standards and operability, and security. The Internet of Things is a completely new field with unknown borders and no institutionalization. If a field does not have established institutions and there are no established patterns of doing things, it can be categorized as an emerging field. Institutional entrepreneurship in a developed field differs from institutional entrepreneurship in an emerging field.

Organizational fields go through different stages of development (DiMagio & Powell, 1983). Fields develop through series of social action that produce, reproduce and transform the organizational field by developing a common understanding and practice between groups of organizations. Mature fields are well structured and have recognizable patterns of interaction. The institutions are widely diffused and accepted. Developing fields consists of a potential network of organizations and a common interest, but no formed and diffused organizations yet (Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004). Different states of development of an organizational field makes that different kinds of institutional entrepreneurship are needed to lead to change. Most studies are focused on the mature fields, but it is important to research the developing fields as well.

It is important to research the developing fields for several reasons. Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) outline three reasons. First, they argue that it is important because the emerging fields provides considerable opportunities for entrepreneurs to be optimistic and strategic, no matter what their position is. Where within established fields an actor’s social position matters for the influence and change that can be made, emerging fields do not have those established positions yet. Second, the rewards for success are promising. Thirdly, emerging field present different challenges

(16)

- 15 -

than more developed fields, as there is no existing structure yet. Field characteristics influences institutional entrepreneurship. Institutionalized fields need a different approach than emerging fields where there is fragmentation and heterogeneity of opinions. The latter, for example, depends more on finding common ground and stories that resonate with all the different actors (Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009).

In addition to those reasons, it is important to study institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields, because it can be of used to establish a useful new field, such as sustainable entrepreneurship by means of the Internet of Thing, and avoid it losing momentum. For most new fields it takes a long period of time for it to take off, because a new field mostly loses momentum. Emerging fields need a supporting institutional environment to legitimize their actions and to fully take off (Marcus & Anderson, 2010).It is important for new fields to institutionalize, because otherwise there is the risk of social fragmentation and a lot of self-isolating and competing entities which makes it harder to reach a specific goal (Trist, 1983). Especially for crucial new fields, such as sustainability, it is important to develop a richer and more accurate understanding of the process to avoid cases to be unsuccessful (Bartley, 2007). At the moment, most research is focused on the actors and the networking function, but not as much on the process. Furthermore, research into the process remains vague and has a focus on single, disruptive events, but the process might be more complex (Khavul, et. al., 2013).

As made clear above, the Internet of Things is an emerging field, since the field is still heterogeneous, with little coordination and weak legal institutions. To establish such a field it is important to develop the field of institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields, so it can be seen which conditions have to be established to encourage the Internet of Things trend to take off, so it can speed up sustainable practices. The Internet of Things trend, although existing since the 1990’s, only recently started to gain real interest (www.google.com/trends). The potential impact is starting to be recognized by companies and the government, but there are no clear regulations and regulatory bodies at the moment. Nowadays there is a hands- off approach (Meek, 2012). There is a lack of

(17)

- 16 -

standards, norms and guiding institutions in the field so far. Governments have started to show interest, but are trying to understand the concept rather than actively regulating issues such as privacy, standards and operability, and security. If a field does not have established institutions and there are no established patterns of doing things, it can be categorized as an emerging field. Institutional entrepreneurship in a developed field differs from institutional entrepreneurship in an emerging field. The Internet of Things is a completely new field with unknown borders and no institutionalization.

Organizational fields go through different stages of development (DiMagio & Powell, 1983). Fields develop through a series of social actions that produce, reproduce and transform the organizational field by developing a common understanding and practice between groups of organizations. Mature fields are well structured and have recognizable patterns of interaction. The institutions are widely diffused and accepted. Developing fields consists of a potential network of organizations and a common interest, but no formed organizations yet (Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004). Different states of development of an organizational field means that different kinds of institutional entrepreneurship are needed to lead to change. Most studies are focused on the mature fields, but it is important to research the developing fields as well.

It is important to research the developing fields for several reasons. Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) outline these three reasons. First, they argue that it is important because the emerging fields provide considerable opportunities for entrepreneurs to be optimistic and strategic, no matter their position. However, within established fields an actor’s social position matters for the influence and change that can be made, emerging fields do not have those established positions yet. Second, the rewards for success are promising. Thirdly, emerging fields present different challenges from more developed fields, as there is no existing structure yet and field characteristics influence institutional entrepreneurship. Institutionalized fields need a different approach than emerging fields where there is fragmentation and heterogeneity of opinions. The latter, for example, depends more

(18)

- 17 -

on finding common ground and stories that resonate with all the different actors (Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009).

In addition to those reasons, it is important to study institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields, because it can be used to establish a useful new field, such as sustainable entrepreneurship by means of the Internet of Things and avoiding losing momentum. For most new fields it takes a long period of time for them to take off, because a new field mostly loses momentum. Emerging fields need a supporting institutional environment to legitimize their actions and to fully take off (Marcus & Anderson, 2010). It is important for new fields to institutionalize, because otherwise there is the risk of social fragmentation and a lot of self-isolating and competing entities which makes it harder to reach a specific goal (Trist, 1983). Especially for crucial new fields, such as sustainability, it is important to develop a richer and more accurate understanding of the process to avoid cases being unsuccessful (Bartley, 2007). At the moment, most research is focused on the actors and the networking function, but not as much on the process. Furthermore, research into the process remains vague and has a focus on single, disruptive events, but the process might be more complex (Khavul, et. al., 2013).

As made clear above, the Internet of Things is an emerging field, since the field is still heterogeneous, with little coordination and weak legal institutions to establish such a field it is important to develop the field of institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields. This can be seen to show which conditions have to be established and to encourage the Internet of Things trend to take off, so it can speed up sustainable practices.

2.4 Institutional Entrepreneurship in emerging fields

As stated above, much of the research in the field of Institutional Entrepreneurship takes place in developed, or at least, partly developed fields and there is a lack of research for the emerging fields. There are only a few publications that focus on the development of institutional entrepreneurship in the emerging fields. Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) recognized the importance of studying the

(19)

- 18 -

emerging fields and set up an exploratory study, researching the case of HIV/ AIDS advocacy in Canada. Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) made a framework for Institutional Entrepreneurship in this emerging field. However, a weakness of their study is the limited amount of evidence. David, Sine and Haveman (2013) studied how actors legitimize new organizational forms in emerging fields. Their study was also limited to solely one case study. Lastly, Battilan, Leca and Boxenbaum (2009) researched the role of the actors in institutional entrepreneurship. The propositions of this research will mainly be concerned with the theory of Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) mixed with the findings of Battilan, Leca and Boxenbaum David, Sine and Haveman (2013) and the existing case literature. The bulk of this research will target how those papers on institutional entrepreneurship and their findings relate to each other and what they say about institutional entrepreneurship.

Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) found that Institutional Entrepreneurship involves three critical activities. The first activity is that people, with subject positions containing legitimacy, bridge diverse stakeholders in a heterogeneous field. Common ground is mostly found in the added value for society as a whole (David, Sine and Haveman, 2013). As Battilana, Leca and Boxenbaum (2009) show there is no consensus in the literature on whether, for divergent change, those positions are hold by low-status organizations or high-status organizations in the center of a field. However, they do argue that it depends on the heterogeneity and degree of institutionalization of the field. Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) do not focus on the status of the organizations, but focus on the legitimacy of the individual actors that will give them the ability to bridge stakeholders with a diffused set of resources. In any case it is important to bring the stakeholders together in a collaborative manner, as collaboration is important in forming institutions, especially for smaller organizations (Lawrence et. al., 2002).

The second activity is the theorization of new practices by means of discursion and politics. Theorization includes the development and specification of categories and the formation of cause and effect relationships. The purpose if theorization is to facilitate diffusion by enhancing perceived

(20)

- 19 -

similarity among the different actors and accentuates the importance of the emergence of a new institution (Hwang & Powell, 2005). This theorization generally happens with the interests of the diverse stakeholders in mind so coalitions can be established and the new standards be diffused, as the last stage is the institutionalization of the new practices (Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004). This is in agreement with Battilana, Leca, and Boxenbaum (2009) who establish that there are two conditions for being an Institutional Entrepreneur. For being an Institutional Entrepreneur both the initiation and implementation are important. However, they add that the implementation does not necessarily has to succeed. In addition, David, Sine and Haveman (2013) confirm that institutionalization starts only after theorization has started and connections are established.

The last stage is the implementation of institutions and practices. In emerging fields it is more likely to extend existing routines, since the subject is already new rather than having a totally new business model and practices (Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004), in this way legitimacy is created. The new institutions are based on old relationships, due to the need to create common ground and establish a base for change mostly routed in a subject position’s network. David, Sine and Haveman (2013) also concluded that in emerging fields they draw upon external support for legitimacy, because there are no field-specific resources. Furthermore, there is the need to draw upon affiliations with external authorities and elites. Trist (1983) argued that for the development of a domain, or reshaping a field, referent organizations are needed to push from a new field with a networking character to a centered field. This will lead to regulation, appreciation, an infrastructure and support. There are two types of referent organizations; already existing ones that establish conversation and emergent referent organizations that accelerate innovation. However, this process is not mentioned for emerging fields. Can this be connected to the process of developing institutional entrepreneurship in an emerging field?

Trist (1983) argues that some issues are too large to be dealt with by single organizations and should be dealt with on a meta-level, or inter- organizational. For those inter-organizational initiatives

(21)

- 20 -

to succeed institution building is needed to advance. Institution building will come into existence when organizations cooperate. The corporation formed performs a regulative function concerned with development rather than an operating agency. This corporation is solely for guiding the institutionalization process. Trist (1983) relates such organizations back to field developments and reshaping fields, however it could well be that emerging fields need a similar referent organization to establish rules, regulations and institutions.

Where Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) focus on the process, the other two studies are concerned with the field characteristics and the actor’s social position. Field characteristics, as described above, just at the actor have an influence on the legitimacy. David, Sine and Haveman (2013) found that actors become more legitimate when they link the emerging field to established practices, expertise, logic, cultural elements and external authorities and elites. This practice is called functionality; accepted institutional logics are transferred to unfamiliar domains (Hwang & Powell, 2005). However, in most cases this is only accepted if the existing logic is imported into a new, open domain, where it can create new opportunities (Hwang & Powell, 2005), such as developing fields. Furthermore, increased legitimacy appears to be linked to altruism. Lastly, the legitimacy is increased when a shared social code is developed. Battilana, Leca, and Boxenbaum (2009) focus more on the emergence of institutional entrepreneurship within individual actors, there are certain field and personal characteristics, such as a diverse network, that can create positive circumstance but are not a guarantee. Both studies elaborate on the need for the institutional entrepreneurs to establish a coherent identity and story for legitimacy and to bring different stakeholders together. A clear vision is key for mobilizing allies and resources (Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum, 2009; Hwang & Powell, 2005). A clear vision can bring stakeholders to collaborate which is essential for overcoming resource limitations (Lawrence et. al., 2002). A clear vision and encompassing discourse that resonates with all the different interests and values of all different actors can bring stakeholders together as well as mobilize different resources.

(22)

- 21 -

Thus, the research so far focusses on a three stage process from forming the ideas and theorizing to implementing those ideas with an overarching clear vision to bring together all stakeholders to moderate the success of institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields, see figure 1.

Figure 1: Stage of institutional entrepreneurship

This research will focus on stage 3 of institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields proposed by Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004). In this stage, a new theory of practices will be implemented. Bartley (2007) argued that building a new organizational field is a combination of relational and cultural aspects and comes together at the intersection of relations and meanings. Therefore, it is looked at whether, as Maguire, Hardy and Lawrence (2004) argue, successful institutional entrepreneurs link the new field to established routines and seek external support for legitimacy. Secondly, it is looked at as the role of a clear vision and encompassing discourse. See figure 2 for the focus area.

(23)

- 22 -

Figure 2: Focus research

Based on the research elaborated above, the framework in figure 3 is established. It focusses on the third stage of the institutional entrepreneurship process. It is expected that existing routines are used as a base for institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields and that external support is used to legitimize the new practices. Furthermore, the theory of Trist (1983) is included, as it is expected that emerging fields need referent- institutions as the base to establish institutions that frame the new field, just as developing fields. Therefore an extra step in the process is included, as can be seen in figure 3.

The second part of the research focusses on the vision and identity created by the institutional entrepreneurs. Both Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum (2009) and David, Sine and Haveman (2013) elaborate on the importance of having a clear vision and identity to unify the stakeholders and get support. Therefore it is expected that a clear vision and an encompassing discourse has a moderating effect on the successfulness of stage 3 of the institutional entrepreneurship process in emerging field in moving to a new established institution.

(24)

- 23 -

(25)

- 24 -

3. Existing case literature

Building on the framework constructed by the scholarly literature, the existing case literature will be used to develop propositions that will be tested by the qualitative research. The propositions will be discussed per component.

3.1 Vision

Both papers by Battilana, Leca, & Boxenbaum (2009) and David, Sine and Haveman (2013) elaborate on the importance of having a clear vision and identity to unify the stakeholders and get support. Both the literature on the BioBased Economy and the offshore wind energy sector confirm that there is a unifying vision that connects the different stakeholders. The overarching motivation to start with offshore wind energy and a biobased economy are environmental considerations. A switch to renewable resources is necessary from a climate and environmental viewpoint. Offshore wind energy is believed to be able to contribute to a cleaner future and a reduction of CO2 emissions (Energy

valley, 2010; Topteam energie, 2012; Cleef, 2015). Also, for the Biobased Economy the daunting challenge of climate change is an important driver. To be able to reach the goals established by the European Union it is necessary to use alternative resources for energy such as wind and the sun. Biobased materials can support the transition to a more sustainable energy production and can be a lasting alternative for the chemical industry (Platform Groene Grondstoffen, 2007; Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, 2007; Steen et. al., 2014; Werkgroep Businessplan Biobased Economy, 2011).

In addition to this overarching necessity and vision to reduce CO2 emissions, both sectors seem to have more specific visions on how to accomplish those goals. Furthermore, it seems that both visions are broadly supported by industry and research facilities. From the beginning, important

(26)

- 25 -

players in industry have been asked to contribute their point of view to establish a vision (Energy valley, 2010). In addition, 50 companies support the Green Deal agreement in which the government states their mission to reduce cost of wind energy by 40 percent (topteam energie, 2012). Approximately 95 companies and institutions also signed the letter of commitment closely related to the Green Deal, which states that they will commit themselves to the InnovatieContract, Innovation Contract, (Topteam energie, 2012) and thus contribute to the cost reduction (Zuijlen, Zaaijer, & Meijer, 2014). The Biobased Economy is based on a network structure with a multi-disciplinary approach and is broadly endorsed (Werkgroep Businessplan Biobased Economy, 2011). Research by Overwijk et. al (2011) shows that the visions of the technological research institutes are well aligned with the vision of the government. Futhermore, Bos (2006) writes that there is a close cooperation with the big chemical companies. Thus, for both cases there seems to be a vision that is broadly shared throughout the community. As mentioned above a vision is seen as important in uniting different stakeholders, not only in the implementation process, but also in the other phases of the institutional entrepreneurship process. Therefore it is expected that a clear vision and an encompassing discourse has a moderating effect on the successfulness of stage 3 of the institutional entrepreneurship process in emerging fields in moving to a new established institution.

Proposition 1: A clear vision and an encompassing discourse that resonates with all the different interests and values of all different actors moderates the successfulness of institutional entrepreneurs in emerging fields in stage 3 to move to a new established institution.

3.2 External support

As mentioned in the literature review it is expected that emerging fields draw upon external support, from external authorities and elites, for legitimacy (David, Sine, Haveman, 2013). The literature on the offshore wind energy sector does not show much support for this statement, other than that the letter of commitment that is signed by approximately 95 companies (Zuijlen, Zaaijer &

(27)

- 26 -

Meijer, 2014), this shows support from companies within the sector. However, in the literature it is emphasized that 50 percent of those companies are small and medium sized companies, and not elite companies as was stated in the literature review. In addition, the sector has support from the government. The offshore wind energy sector is part of the new Top sector policy, which appointed 9 different sectors that will get extra resources from the government to stimulate their growth (Meijer, Zaaijer & Zuijlen, 2015).

The literature on the biobased economy however shows that there is a lot of external support for the new sector. First, the initial business plan from the government for the BioBased Economy is cross-sectoral support, from the agrofood, agricultural, logistic, energy and water sector (Werkgroep Businessplan, Biobased Economy, 2011). Also, Overwijk et. al. (2015) recognize that the sector generated a lot of interest from companies as well as the public. In addition, the sector has support from six out of the eleven Dutch ministries (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, 2007). Furthermore, six platforms are established in which representatives from industry, knowledge institutes and NGO’s work together to attain the goals the government established. This cross sector approach and network approach opens up more possibilities to actually use the biobased resources as opposed to the past when this did not happen (Bos, 2008). According to Bos (2008), this cooperation is one of the factors that made the current new sector a success and what was lacking with the Agrification movement. Thus, both sectors show broad support from government and industry. Therefore, it is expected that in emerging fields external support is used to legitimize the new practices.

Proposition 2: Successful institutional entrepreneurs in emerging fields will institutionalize new practices by drawing upon external support to create legitimacy.

3.3 Existing routines

The third aspect of the framework concerns the routines of the new sector. It is expected that existing routines are used as a base for institutional entrepreneurship in emerging fields to create

(28)

- 27 -

legitimacy. In the offshore wind energy sector a lot of new technology is developed for the offshore wind turbines (Eecen, 2011). However, especially in the beginning, the knowledge of the offshore oil and gas sector is used to build platforms at sea as well as their drilling methods (Cleef, 2015). There are multiple techniques to convert biobased materials into materials, energy and pharmaceuticals, both based on old technologies as well as completely new technologies (Ministerie van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, 2007). The Werkgroep Businessplan Biobased Economy (2011) predicted that the sector would go through three different phases. In the first phase, agricultural building block will be implemented in the chemical process. The second phase, entails changing the structure of the chemical industry. And in the last phase the biobased materials will be used as efficiently as possible without completely dismantling the whole plant. In 2013 van der Hoeven and Reinshagen, established that the sector indeed went through this process, but faster than expected. The literature suggests that both sectors indeed build upon old routines from other sectors, but is not entirely clear about it. Therefore it is expected that existing routines are used to legitimize the new sector.

Proposition 3: Successful institutional entrepreneurs in emerging fields will institutionalize new practices by attaching them to existing routines and, in so doing, they stabilize field-level relationships.

(29)

- 28 -

3. Methods

This is an exploratory research that builds on the few studies that are previously done towards this topic. Since all the former research is based on single case studies this research aims at using a multiple case study approach to increase the generality of the findings. To improve the construct, validity triangulation is used to show multiple sources of evidence. Existing literature is used to establish propositions which will be tested by using interviews. In this section the data collection and data analysis will be further elaborated on.

4.1 Data collection

4.1.1. Existing case literature

A text and documentation analysis was performed with the currently existing case literature. Those documents and reports are gathered via desk research and by contacting organizations who would be able to provide reports. The documentation together with the literature portrayed in the literature review provide the basis for establishing propositions which were tested by the interviews. Unfortunately, not all the documents could be used, as part is confidential. Nevertheless, they give a more complete overview of the cases.

4.1.2. Case selection

The unit of analysis will be new institutions in emerging fields and two cases will be selected to create a multiple case study approach. The cases are from a non-probability sample and are selected with purposive sampling. The researcher’s judgement is used to select the sample members based on premises set out by the literature (Saunders & Lewis, 2012). Purposive sampling is used, because it is hard to find suitable cases and there is no overview of all possibilities. Furthermore, the cases should be comparable and therefore adhere to certain criteria. The cases should fall within the following

(30)

- 29 -

boundaries. First, the case should be within an emerging field. As mentioned previously, an emerging field is a field where there is a common interest with new technology or rules that shows promise for institutionalization, but at the beginning is highly fragmented and has no established institutions, norms, or regulations (Maguire, Hardy & Lawrence, 2004; Lawrence, 2007). Second, it should be a successful institutional entrepreneurship initiative. Meaning that the process of institutional entrepreneurship within the emerging field resulted in a remaining institutionalized practice. Thirdly, the cases should be within emerging fields that support the trend of sustainability so the theory can be generalized to the case of the Internet of Things. Lastly, the initiative should be in the Netherlands.

The aforementioned criteria left only a handful of new developing sustainable fields within the Netherlands to be researched. After contacting those initiatives, two of the new developing fields were willing to participate in the research; the BioBased Economy and the offshore wind energy sector. Both cases have been in the implementation phase since the beginning of the 2000s and have been experiencing growth. Furthermore, the biobased economy as well as the offshore wind energy sector have been recognized by the government as promising sectors and are included in the top sector policy which gives the sectors extra support to grow (www.topsectoren.nl). Thus, they are both sustainable new developing fields within the Netherlands that are in the same phase of development and recognized by the government as promising initiatives. Those similar circumstances makes for reliable and comparable case studies.

4.1.3. Interviews

In addition to the existing case literature study, 14 semi- structured interviews were conducted. Those interviewees were selected using snowball sampling, where new contacts were gained via people connected to the sector. However, it was made sure that a wide array of viewpoints was included. For each sector people from the government, knowledge institutions, and the business world were included to give a complete and diverse overview of the sector. All the interviewees have

(31)

- 30 -

been involved in the development of the field from the beginning and have firsthand experiences. The interviews lasted 30- 60 minutes and were recorded. Semi-structured interviews enabled testing the theoretical framework, but not limit the discovery of new information. Each interview touched upon the following topics; the vision of the initiative, the routines implemented, the external support for the initiative, origination, success factors, barriers, and the future (Table 1). Those topics were dived into subtopics. The general topics were covered with each interviewee, even though not everyone was able to answer all the questions the three main topics of vision, external support and existing routine were all discussed by the respondents.

Main topics Subtopics

Vision Shared vision, development of vision

External support Growth, Big companies, Government, other

Existing routine Current way of working, comparison to other industries, way of working at the beginning Success factors/ barriers Financing, rules and regulations, other Role of the government

Future Stimulation of growth

Table 1: Interview topics and subtopics

4.2DATA ANALYSIS

In this research content analysis is used. The interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed before coding. For the coding a combination of the inductive and deductive approach of organizing the data is used (Holloway, 2016). Codes are deducted from the framework presented in the literature review, but as this is an explorative research and there is little previous research done on the topic, there will still be room for inductive coding. This means that starter codes were used, but that codes can be added during the coding process. After the initial coding of the interviews, the codes per category were analyzed and put into further categories, when necessary, to make it easier to analyze the data and to determine patterns. The codes were divided into the different topics from the

(32)

- 31 -

interviews and further split up from there. If a new topic kept reoccurring it was added to the topic list. For the coding of the sources Nvivo was used.

The discourse used to describe the topics may be biased as the exact wording might not be used by the interviewees, however a pragmatic approach was used to make sense of the data and identify broader patterns. The results are based on the codes within the topics, not the topics itself. In the data analysis quotations are used to provide support and evidence for the analysis, those can be found in the tables at the end of a section. The respondents will remain anonymous, however they are numbered to show that quotes from a diverse range of interviewees are used.

(33)

- 32 - 5. Cases

5.1 Cases

In this section a brief overview of the cases is given to provide the reader with some general background information which makes it easier to place the results in context.

5.1.1 The BioBased Economy

The BioBased Economy is the evolution from an economy based on fossil fuels to an economy based on biomass. The evolution is anchored in a cooperation between government, industry and knowledge institutes (Bos, 2008). The formal transition within the Netherlands took place in 2007 when the minister of agriculture, nature and food quality officially announced the governmental vision of the BioBased economy within the energy transition in a letter to the parliament (Verburg, 2007). This was the starting point of official short term and long term visions for the BioBased Economy supported by knowledge institutes, government, and the business world (Steen, et. al., 2014). This support is registered in the Manifest BioBased Economy, signed in 2011 by 43 parties, stating their collective aspirations (Steen, et. al., 2014). This same year the official BioBased Economy platform was established and in 2014 an official committee was established with the sole purpose of normalizing the BioBased Economy (NEN, 2014).

Bos (2008) in her analysis of past policies related to green resources acknowledges this transition, based on several trends; BioBased products get to market, there is a broad network both on a national and European level, and the process of learning is increasingly focused on the technical and economic situation as well as regulations. In addition, Steen et. al. (2014) recognize that the BioBased Economy is a legitimate sector which is anchored politically and institutionally, as well as has

(34)

- 33 -

implemented instruments and procedures. Thus, the BioBased Economy is a new sector in the Netherlands with institutionalized practices, which makes it an interesting case study for this research.

5.1.2. The offshore wind energy sector

The Netherlands has a long tradition of windmills, but only recently the advent of the offshore wind energy sector. In 2003 there were no offshore windfarms built in the Netherlands so far (We@Sea, 2010). Nowadays, the offshore wind energy sector in the Netherlands consists of two finished windfarms, completed in 2006 and 2008, out on the North Sea and three windfarms still under construction (Cleef, 2015). With those parks, the Netherlands is the fourth biggest in offshore wind energy in Europe. Since the Green Deal and the Innovation Contract, signed by approximately 90 companies and institutes, in 2012 the sector is supported by both the government and industry. The government included the offshore wind energy sector, just as the BioBased Economy, in their top sector policy, which is intended to give a boost to the chosen industries (Zuijlen, Zaaijer, Meijer, 2014). In addition, the Energieakkoord (Energy agreement) gave extra urgency to the matter.

The government is currently implementing a new structure to make the implementation of new offshore wind parks faster and more cost efficient. To accommodate this transition the Top Consortia voor Kennis en Innovatie, TKI, Wind op Zee has been founded. There is a roadmap in which agreements are made for the offshore wind energy sector until 2023. They start with giving out two parcels within 2016. Thus, the offshore wind energy sector is a relatively new sector that came into existent during the same time period as the BioBased Economy. Both are included in the new top sector policy, are institutionalized and have the interest and support from the government.

(35)

- 34 -

6. Results

In this section the results of the qualitative analysis will be discussed. The result will be split up by component and by case, so a clear overview of the data is created.

6.1 Vision

6.1.1 The BioBased Economy

Only 2 out of the 9 respondents indicates that there is no shared vision. The quotes in table 2 indicate that the rest of the respondents makes clear that there exists a shared, or at least partly shared vision. Not everyone agrees that there is a totally common vision yet, but more than 40 percent of the interviewees sees a shift towards an increasingly shared vision and that the vision has been growing closer together more than in the past. This is an interesting result, since the 90s the Dutch government has tried to establish a program, Agrificatie, based on bio materials, which failed mainly because it was too much supply instead of demand driven. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that climate change is seen as an accelerator of the BioBased Economy and is pointed that a biobased economy is simply needed to reduce C02 emissions.

A third of the respondents, a mix of government officials, researchers and business delegates, mentioned that, the government made a real effort in creating a general vision. Since they created the vision together with the different stakeholders. The government used a network approach, including all the different stakeholders, to generate a common vision for the future. However, the miscelaneous jargon within the different industries remains a barrier for them to understand each other. Lastly, it is important to mention that one of the interviewees was very critical and mentions that if everyone agrees with the common vision the critical view will be lost. This critical view is important to stay focused and consider multiple viewpoints to reach the most beneficial outcome.

(36)

- 35 -

The BioBased Economy: Vision

Topic Quote Respondent

“I think there exists quite some agreement” 8

Shared vision

“It is noticeable that there is more a common vision than 12 years ago, than we were still

laughed at” 3

“There are a lot of differences, but they get closer together. … They slowly grow towards each other and there are more platforms where people talk to each other, but we are still in the

phase of building bridges” 5

“Yes the climate story, the movies of Al Gore, and the raised awareness of the big climate

change did accelerate the program.” 5

“From the energy sector there is the need to keep using biofuels the coming years, to reduce

C02 emissions.” 7

“The ministry no longer said: this is how it is done. But they pulled a couple of people, both from knowledge institutes, the business world and NGOs, together and said; Guys, how are we

going to make this happen? Thus, they profiled themselves more as a partner”. 2 Vision

creation “Yes, at that time we created it together with the business world”. 7

Critique

“If there will be a general consensus, forget it, that is not going to happen. And that should not happen either. And why should that not happen is that you need to give opposite sounds

room to think along. You have to organize those opposite sounds, because with all due respect, if you do new things, you never know whether you do it right. You have to do dumb

things and it is always good when people shout from the sidelines: you are doing things

wrong. And then you think; you they might be right”. 2

Table 2: The BioBased vision Quotes

6.1.2 The offshore wind energy sector

The majority of the respondents, 4 out of 5, agree that the different stakeholders in the same sector have the same vision, especially on the overarching ideas, namely reducing CO2 emissions.

However, this does not mean that there has not been any discussion on the exact interpretation of how to implement those ideas. Although the respondents agree that there is a similar vision, it is not solely an intrinsic vision. 40 percent of the respondents mentioned that this agreement stems from commercial interests and those commercial interest happen to line up nicely most of the times. However, not everyone agrees that there is a coherent vision and similar interest between the different stakeholders within the sector, there also exist differences in the commercial interests. In

(37)

- 36 -

conclusion, there seems to be an overall agreement that the different stakeholders have the same vision on the development of the sector, but in addition to the overarching climate vision this is mainly because they have similar interests.

As can be seen from the quote in table 3, the government involved the different stakeholders in creating the vision for their current program, Top Consortia voor Kennis en Innovatie, TKI, wind op Zee together with the different stakeholders in the sector and did not see this as an individual project. Thus, the creation of the vision was a combined effort of industry, knowledge institutes and government.

The Offshore Wind energy section: Vision

Shared vision

“In the general sense everyone always agrees when you say that the energy branch should be more sustainable, then everyone will agree. However, there can be discussion on the pace

from the development, or what it may cost” 10

“In the end everyone wants to, they are all commercial interests. If another company can do something cheaper, then you are out of business, therefore you have to keep up with the

developments” 14 Vision

creation

“For example, last year we sent main statements of the knowledge and innovation contract, the KIA and the KICK, to everyone and we organized internet consults and workshops, we got

criticism on it, which we adjusted, but in general everyone backed up the basic idea” 12

Critique

“There are always different interests … well if I am honest, I want to develop a windfarm and then I will sell if for a lot of money and after 2-3 year I will not deliver any energy anymore. That is a totally different viewpoint than when some comes over and says; I want to develop a

windfarm, because I am an energy company and I have to, just like the other plants, I have to make sure that my customers get clean energy and I have to do this low cost. Those two are more or less the two outer points of the spectrum of how companies deal with their activities

regarding wind energy and specifically offshore wind energy.” 11

Table 3: The Offshore Wind Energy Sector Vision Quotes

6.2 External support

The majority of the field experts agree that it is important to have support from the larger, wellknown companies. Two main reasons are acknowledged. First, big companies are needed to scale up production and can bring products to market. Secondly, the larger companies can show that the technology works andis feasible. However, most of the respondents agree that the sole support of

(38)

- 37 -

larger companies is not the only advantage. SMEs and startups are needed in the process as well to shake up the industry and bring the innovative ideas.

Furthermore, it is interesting to notice that a third of the respondents also point towards the importance that the role of the government and the climate conference and the goals established within play in establishing the sector. Thus, the role of the government and big companies is important to establish legitimacy. However, the field could not have developed as far as it did without the SMEs and startups and the legitimization of the purpose of the sector by climate change. Thus, it seems to be a combination.

The BioBased Economy: External Support

“The startups are needed for the innovative ideas, but the big companies with their research

facilities, long term production, and volume, are also needed.” 4 Big

companies

“We need a market and that comes from companies such as Coca cola that use the technology in their packaging and if this packaging, and in this case packaging is just one of

the possibilities, scale up then a business case comes into existence. “ 9 “It helps immensely if someone builds a plant and shows that it is possible” 3

“It is definitely what people look at, are there, even with the low oil prices nowadays,

applications that survive.” 7

“Yes, but also SMEs, that helps, because then it starts to get tangible. Then you can hold it,

see it, experience it, then you can see how beautiful it is” 2 SMEs/

Startups “You have SMEs, big companies, and very big companies. It is and and and.” 4 Government “The power lies with the government, the environmental goals, and the branch organizations” 5

Table 4: The BioBased Economy External Support Quotes

6.2.2 The offshore wind energy sector

From all the interviewees 80 percent agreed that it is important to have the support of big companies. Several reasons are named for this. First, it gives legitimacy to the sector, the sector is taken more seriously when big companies join in. Secondly, it is a sector with solely big projects, therefore the involvement of big companies is essential, it is seen as inherent to the character of the sector. Contrary to the results of the BioBased Economy, SMEs and startups are not mentioned in the interviews and do not play a significant role in the sector.

(39)

- 38 -

However, not all the respondents agree that the support of government and big companies is the most important factor for the sector. One of the interviewees argued that the field is growing now, simply because it is the right answer to the problems humanity is facing. Thus, overall there is consensus on the importance of the involvement of big companies in the sector. It gives the sector a boost and makes sure it is taken seriously.

The Offshore Wind Energy Sector: External Support

“Yes, because of that you will be taken more seriously” 10 Big

companies

“Yes, exactly, I think because of the character. I think a lot of sectors can from by starting off with small growing companies. However, with offshore wind energy this is not possible, when

you build a turbine, it already costs 50- 100 million, no one can pay that out of their own

pocket.” 12

“Yes, that is important. Those companies join because they see business. They like to see the same project coming back every year, this stimulates the government to have a long term plan and to continuously install new windfarms. And when you know there will be new farms on a regular basis, then you can invest in ships and other equipment. In that is very important

for the sector. When you want to reduce cost you need to stay busy”. 14

“There are a lot of differences, but they get closer together. … They slowly grow towards each other and there are more platforms where people talk to each other, but we are still in the

phase of building bridges” 5 Critique

“That is not how I look at it. I see it like this: we as a society need to do something … wind

energy is again the right answer”. 11 Government

“Looking back you see continuous change and only support with words, but no actions, now for the first time Kamp, who is in the house of representatives, is defending it seriously and a

big department of the government is supporting the sector.” 12

Table 5: The Offshore Wind Energy Sector External Support Quotes

6.3 Existing routine

There are two aspects to the routine of the BioBased Economy: the systems aspect and the technical aspect. First, the technical aspect will be analyzed and discussed before the systems aspects are elaborated. There is a lot of division between the interviewees about the routine used as can be seen from the quotes in table 6. Nearly half of the participants agree that there is a mixed routine, both new methods and old methods are used. Another respondent explains that there is a new method of working, the building block approach (which gave a boost to the industry). Contrary to that fact, another interviewee explained that the new method has been used in the agricultural sector for a long