Más allá de la tecnología: el papel de los RTO en las grandes transiciones sociales

Eva Arrilucea Solachi

doi:10.18543/bee.2956

Eva Arrilucea Solachi TECNALIA Research & Innovation https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2131-9195

Palabras clave: RTO, Transiciones, Capacidad de absorción

Resumen

La mayor parte de los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible asociados a las grandes transiciones actuales requieren de respuestas complejas que, a menudo, tienen un importante componente tecnológico. Sin embargo, la tecnología por sí sola no es una respuesta suficiente para abordar las grandes transiciones; tiene que venir acompañada de un entendimiento de las tendencias del entorno y de cambios institucionales, sociales, políticos y de otra índole. En este contexto, los centros de investigación tecnológica (RTOs) tienen el potencial de desarrollar una batería de roles, más allá de la generación de tecnología, para contribuir a mejorar la capacidad de absorción de las empresas, de la sociedad y del conjunto del ecosistema y acelerar el cambio. En este documento se proponen algunos de estos roles y también cómo pueden contribuir a reducir las barreras inherentes a las transiciones.

Biografía del autor/a

Eva Arrilucea Solachi, TECNALIA Research & Innovation

Doctora en Análisis Económico y Economía Pública por la Universidad del País Vasco (2005), España, y Experta en Dirección de Negocio y Tecnología por la Universidad de Deusto (2013). Tiene 20 años de experiencia en el asesoramiento en políticas públicas a administraciones públicas y ha desarrollado su carrera profesional en el sector privado con experiencia en Europa, Latinoamérica (Latam) y Oriente Medio. Desde hace 12 años trabaja en Tecnalia y actualmente forma parte del equipo de apoyo estratégico a la Dirección General.

Citas

Amara, L., Becheick, N., & Ouimet, M. (2008). Learning and novelty of innovation in established manufacturing SMEs. Technovation 28 (7), 450-463. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.02.001

Andersen, M. (2004). An Innovation system approach to eco-innovation: Aligning policy rationales. In The Greening of Policies – Interlinkages and Policy Integration Conference (pp. 1-28). Berlin.

Bennat, T., & Sternberg, R. (2020). Knowledge bases in German regions: what hinders combinatorial knowledge dynamics and how regional innovation policies may help. European Planning Studies 28 (2), 319-339. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1656168

Borrás, S., Haakonsson, S., & Poulsen, R. (2023). The transformative capacity of public sector organisations in sustainability transitions: a conceptualization. Papers in Innovation Studies no. 02. CIRCLE Centre for Innovation research LUND University.

Cohen, W.M., & Levinthal, D.A. (1990). Absorptive capacity: A new perspective on learning and innovation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(1), 128-152. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553

Collingridge, D. (1980). The social control of technology. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Comin, D., Licht, G., Pellens, M., & Schubert, T. (2019). Do companies benefit from public research organisations? The impact of the Fraunhofer Society in Germany. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper, no19-006. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3354365

De Jong, J., & Freel, M.S. (2010). Absorptive capacity and the reach of collaboration in high technology small firms. Research Policy 39(1), 47-54. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-020-09800-x

Dominkovic, D., Bacekovic, I., Pedersen, A., & Krajacic, G. (2018). The future of transportation in sustainable energy systems: opportunities and barriers in a clean energy transition. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82, 1823-1838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.117

EARTO. (2015). Knowing your innovation ecosystem actors: data on European RTOs. European Association of Research and Technology Organisations.

EARTO. (2024). Unlocking Innovation: the role of RTOs as intermediaries in knowledge valorisation. EARTO-European Association of Research and Technology Organisations.

Fitjar, R., & Rodriguez-Pose, A. (2013). Firm collaboration and modes of innovation in Norway. Research Policy 42, 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.009

Geels, F.W. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multilevel perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 31, 1257-1274. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00062-8

Geels, F.W. (2004). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems: Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Research Policy, 33 (6-7), 897-920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015

Geels, F. (2019). Socio-technical transitions to sustainability: a review of criticism and elaboration of the multi level perspective. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 39, 187-201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2019.06.009

Geels, F. (2020). Micro-foundations of the multi-level perspective on socio-technical transitions: developing a multi-dimensional model of agency through crossovers between social constructivism, evolutionary economics and neo-institutional theory. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 152.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119894

Herstad, S., Sandven, T., & Ebersberger, B. (2015). Recruitment, knowledge integration and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 44 (1), 138-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2014.06.007

Hervas-Oliver, J., Albors-Garrigós, J., De Miguel, B., & Hidalgo, A. (2012). The role of a firm’s absorptive capacity and the technology transfer process in clusters: How effective are technology centres in low-tech clusters?. Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, 24 (7-8), 523-559. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2012.710256

Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Tuffer, B. (2002). Experimenting for Sustainable Transport: The Approach of Strategic Niche Management. London, New York: Spon Press. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994061

Jensen, M., Jhonson, E., Lorenz, E., & Lundvall, B. (2007). Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Research Policy, 36, 680-693. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006

Kemp, R., & Rip, A. S. (2001). Constructing transition paths through the management of niches. In R. Garud & P. Karnoe (Eds.), Path dependence and creation (pp. 269-299). London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Mazzucato, M. (2019). Governing Missions in the European Union. European Commission.

Mikhailov, A., & Reichert, F. (2019). Influence of absorptive capacity on innovation: a systematic literature review. Revista de Administração Mackenzie, 20 (6). https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-6971/eRAMD190033

Molas-Gallart, J., Boni, A., Giachi, S., & Schot, J. (2021). A formative approach to the evaluation of Transformative Innovation Policies. Research Evaluation, 30(4), 431-442. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvab016

Moodysson, J., & Jonsson, O. (2007). Knowledge collaboration and proximity: the spatial organisation of biotech innovation projects. European Urban and Regional Studies, 14, 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776407075556

Norouzi, F., Hoppe, T., Ramirez, L., & Bauer, P. (2022). A review of socio-technical barriers to smart microgrid development. Renewable and sustainable energy reviews, 167, 112-123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112674

OECD. (2021). The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies. A new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, no. 100. https://doi.org/10.1787/3f6c76a4-en

OECD. (2022). The contribution of RTOs to socio-economic recovery, resilience and transitions. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers nº 129.

Oliver, T., Benini, L., A, B., Dupong, C., Doherty, B., Grodzinska-Jurczak, M., & Tarrason, L. (2021). Knowledge architecture for the wise governance of sustainability transitions. Environmental Science and Policy, 126, 152-163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2021.09.025

Parrilli, M., & Radicic, D. (2020). STI and DUI innovation modes in micro, small, medium and large-sized firms: Distinctive patterns across Europe and the US. European Planning Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2020.1754343

Reda, F., Ruggiero, S., Auvinen, K., & Temmes, A. (2021). Towards low-carbon district heating: Investigating the socio-technical challenges of the urban energy transition. Smart Energy, 4, 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.segy.2021.100054

Rip, A., & Kemp, R. (1998). Technological change. In S. Rayner & E. L. Malone (Eds.), Social Science & Medicine (327-399).

Rotmans, J., Kemp, R., & Van Asselt, M. (2001). More evolution than revolution: transition management in public policy. Foresight: The journal of future studies, strategic thinking and policy, 3(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636680110803003

Thomä, J., & Zimmermann, V. (2019). Non-R&D, interactive, learning and economic performance. Revisiting innovation in SMEs. IFH Working Paper, no. 17.

Vanrie, P. (2023). Mutual Learning Exercise on Knowledge Valorisation: Intermediaries. DG for Research and Innovation-European Commission.

Viscido, S., Taucer, F., Grande, S., & Jenet, A. (2022). Towards the implementation of an EU Strategy for Technology Infrastructures. JRC-EARTO Paper.

Zahra, S., & George, G. (2002). Absorptive capacity: A review and reconceptualization and extension. Academy of Management Review, 27 (2), 185-203. https://doi.org/10.2307/4134351