Document [original]

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

Available online 1 December 2023

The role of the quality infrastructure within socio-technical

transformations: A European perspective

Knut Blind

Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research ISI & TU Berlin, Chair of Innovation Economics, Sekr. H47, Straße des 17. Juni 135, 10623 Berlin, Germany

ARTICLE INFO

Keywords:

Socio-technical regimes

Transformation

Transition

Quality infrastructure

Regulation

Standardization

ABSTRACT

The role of quality infrastructure, i.e., regulation, standardization, metrology, conformity assessment, and

accreditation, is analyzed in the general context of socio-technical transformations. Six policy intervention points

structure their potential contributions. First, insights from the literature and anecdotal evidence reveal that

regulation plays an essential role in niche stimulation, yet standardization is becoming more important for niche

acceleration. However, regulation is essential for destabilizing the whole regime but also for addressing possible

repercussions. Within the coordination of multi-regime interactions, the consistency of regulations and the in-

terfaces to the other elements of quality infrastructure has to be assured. To tilt the whole landscape, the reg-

ulatory framework conditions have to be altered, allowing changes in the directionality of socio-technical

systems. Finally, international standards can leverage nationally focused changes of regulations towards the

global level. Policy recommendations and limitations conclude the paper.

1. Introduction

Energy provision, water supply, and transportation can be consid-

ered as socio-technical systems (Markard et al., 2012). They consist of

individuals, firms, and other organizations, collective actors and their

networks, but also of societal norms, regulations, technical and man-

agement system standards as institutions, as well as of material objects

and knowledge (Geels, 2004; Markard, 2011; Weber, 2003).

Previous research on socio-technical systems has focused mainly on

actors and the role of institutions in general. Following the Porter Hy-

potheses (Porter and Van der Linde, 1995), several studies have inves-

tigated the impact of, in particular, environmental regulations on

innovation (see the review by Ambec et al., 2013). Meanwhile, the

relevance of regulations for innovation in various areas has been

acknowledged (see recent overview in McEntaggart et al., 2020), and

Edler et al. (2021) perceive regulation as a context factor within system

dimensions and as drivers but also as barrier within transformations as

raised by Soininen et al. (2021). Earlier, Rogge and Reichert (2016) saw

regulation as an important primary instrument type that addresses

technology push with intellectual property rights, demand pull with

performance requirements or even prohibitions, and liability law at the

systemic level. In contrast, the explicit role of standards for innovation

has only in the last decades been moved in the focus of research (e.g.,

Blind, 2016b) and also of policy, e.g., within the European Commission’s

standardization strategy (European Commission, 2022). Here, the

objective is to leverage the European standardization system to

contribute to both the green and digital transformations. It even states,

“EU’s ambitions towards a climate neutral, resilient and circular econ-

omy cannot be delivered without European standards on testing

methods, management systems or interoperability solutions.” (European

Commission, 2022, p. 1).

Approaches to disentangle the different impacts of regulation and

standards on innovation have only recently been investigated (Blind

et al., 2017), but not for the whole transformation of socio-technical

E-mail address: [email protected].

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Technological Forecasting & Social Change

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/techfore

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2023.123019

Received 20 December 2022; Received in revised form 17 August 2023; Accepted 12 November 2023

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

systems. Finally, analyses of the comprehensive impact of quality

infrastructure

, i.e., regulation, standardization, metrology, certifica-

tion, accreditation, and market surveillance, on the transformation

socio-technical systems are - despite first attempts (Gonçalves and

Peuckert, 2012) - still missing (Blind, 2015). However, recently the

quality infrastructure has been the focus of a strategy paper by the

British Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS et al.,

2021), followed by a study on its role for selected emerging technologies

(Brown et al., 2022). Furthermore, it has been explicitly mentioned as an

important element for successful transitions of Germany’s innovation

system (OECD, 2022) in general and in particular for the development of

the hydrogen economy in the German national strategy (German Federal

Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, 2020), but also addressed in

the context of the data economy (Puhl et al., 2021). Finally, Aswal

(2020) highlights the role of the quality infrastructure for inclusive

growth in India, whereas Marian et al. (2022) focus on its role, in gen-

eral, but highlight the relevance of international standards and certifi-

cation schemes for the development of solar plants in India.

Based on this background, we derive the following research question:

•What is the role of regulations and standards and the other elements

of the quality infrastructure for the transformation of socio-technical

systems?

The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. First, we provide

an overview of the possible links between the elements of the quality

infrastructure, in particular regulations and standards, on the one hand,

and the transformation of socio-technical systems on the other. In

addition, there are few studies addressing the role of certification or

accreditation in this context, and only a single one is related to

metrology. Based on these insights, we position the elements of quality

infrastructure in the heuristic model of socio-technological trans-

formations within the multi-level perspective (Geels, 2002), following

the structure of six policy intervention points by Kanger et al. (2020).

Finally, the paper concludes with several policy implications but also

limitations pointing to proposals for future empirical research of trans-

formations of specific socio-technical systems.

2. Literature on quality infrastructure relevant for socio-

technical transformations

The literature review relies on reviews on the impacts of regulations

(Blind, 2016a; McEntaggart et al., 2020) and standards (Blind, 2016b,

2022) on innovation. However, it is expanded by also considering the

other elements of the quality infrastructure, i.e., metrology, certifica-

tion, accreditation, and the quality infrastructure as a whole.

2.1. Regulations

In general, we follow the first part of the very broad definition of

regulations released by the OECD (e.g., OECD, 2021), which says that

“regulation includes all laws, formal and informal orders, subordinate

rules, administrative formalities, and rules issued by non-governmental

or self-regulatory bodies to whom governments have delegated regula-

tory power.” However, since we want to elaborate on the differences

between regulation and standardization, we consider the second part of

the definition as part of standardization, at least those documents

released by the formal national, European, or international standardi-

zation bodies, because they have in any case formal agreements with the

national governments, the European Commission or the United Nations.

Markard et al. (2012) and Gaziulusoy and Brezet (2015) highlight

that socio-technical transformations also include modifications in reg-

ulatory institutions in addition to technological change. Furthermore,

K¨

ohler et al. (2019) argued that public policy, due to market failures

related to transformations, can play a key role in influencing the

directionality of transformations via regulation. Finally, Kanger et al.

(2021) highlight that for deep transformations, the development of

policy instruments, which create strong regulatory pressure on socio-

technical systems, is recommended.

Scott (1995) distinguishes under the heading regulative rules" be-

tween regulations, standards, and laws. In particular, companies are the

focus of regulatory push and pull mechanisms (Dunphy et al., 2007;

Greenstone, 2003). Within the structuration theory, Giddens (1984)

highlights that actors, including companies, are embedded in rule

structures, not only as passive rule-followers but also as users and

eventually makers, e.g., by lobbying for favorable regulations. There-

fore, rules are not just constraining but also enabling by increasing

predictability, trust, and reliability. Here, it has to be noted that the

constraining function is much more relevant on the level of socio-

technical regimes

, but not for niches.

However, when niche in-

novations turn into regimes, the rules become more stable, constraining,

and less enabling. Complementary to the role of rules in socio-technical

transformations, Kivimaa et al. (2021) identified regulations, policies,

and formal institutions as one of four dimensions where disruptions can

be realized in transformations beyond technological disruptions (John-

stone and Kivimaa, 2018; Johnstone et al., 2020) as the introduction

already pointed to the Porter Hypothesis (Porter and Van der Linde,

1995). Based on their review of 21 articles, regulations, but also their

removal (Matschoss and Heiskanen, 2018) can be described as drivers of

disruptive innovations (Enker and Morrison, 2017). Or they disrupt

current socio-technical regimes (Kivimaa and Kern, 2016), e.g., stopping

energy production in nuclear power plants (Hermwille, 2016) or from

fossil fuels (Rosenbloom, 2019). In transition studies, destabilization has

been conceptualized as a de-institutionalization process where sector-

specific institutions, like regulations, are removed (Turnheim and

Geels, 2013). In addition, it is argued that regulation can support

disruptive innovations by fostering customers with a strong demand for

environmental protection or energy efficiency (Ashford and Hall, 2018).

However, the effectiveness of regulations as drivers for

UNIDO (2018) defines quality infrastructure as: “the system comprising the

organizations (public and private) together with the policies, relevant legal and

regulatory framework, and practices needed to support and enhance the qual-

ity, safety and environmental soundness of goods, services, and processes. The

quality infrastructure is required for the effective operation of domestic mar-

kets, and its international recognition is important to enable access to foreign

markets. It is a critical element in promoting and sustaining economic devel-

opment and environmental and social well-being. It relies on metrology, stan-

dardization, accreditation, conformity assessment, and market surveillance”.

The terms “transformation” and “transition” are often used synonymously.

According to Hansmeier et al. (2022), (p. 1) “they describe comprehensive

approaches to identify and implement (radical) non-linear paths and solutions

for an intended substantial system change of both the environment and soci-

ety.” Since the term “transitions” is mainly used in sustainability research,

following Hansmeier et al. (2022) we use “transformation”, because it is

established in more literature strands.

Market surveillance as a just recently (e.g., by UNIDO, 2018) added

dimension to quality infrastructure does not appear separately in the literature

and is, therefore, subsumed under the enforcement of regulations.

Geels (2011, p. 27) defines socio-technical regimes “as semi-coherent set of

rules that orient and coordinate the activities of the social groups that repro-

duce the various elements of socio-technical systems.” Regulations belong

definitively to these regimes, whereas standards might change their character

over time starting to be developed in niches and eventually referenced in

governmental regulations and, therefore, becoming part of the socio-technical

regime, like some certification schemes being mandatory for the providers of

technical infrastructure.

Following Kemp et al. (1998), according to Geels (2011, p. 27), “Niches as

‘protected spaces’ such as R&D laboratories, subsidized demonstration projects,

or small market niches where users have special demands and are willing to

support emerging innovations.”

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

transformations in socio-technical regimes can be limited by different

factors, e.g., fragmented government institutions, complex procedural

rules, and substantive rules, like property rights allowing the exploita-

tion of natural resources (Soininen et al., 2021). In addition, the impact

of new regulations is less disruptive if they complement rather than

replace existing regulations (Kern et al., 2017). Bauknecht et al. (2020)

identify the tension between a regulatory focus on cost efficiency and

the objective of transformative change as a further challenge. Brouillat

and Maïder (2020) highlight that the most severe regulations with

rigorous enforcement and shortest timing do not necessarily lead to the

envisioned outcome because they may put too much pressure on inno-

vative firms. Therefore, they recommend that severe regulations be

combined with a more flexible enforcement to secure sufficient

competition and provide pioneering companies with enough time to

develop solutions. From another perspective, if regulators are keen to

apply their regulation strictly and are willing to accept a higher market

concentration, they should reduce their stringency to enhance the

prospects of transformation. This argument is in line with Rhodes et al.

(2021), who show that flexible regulations can be a relatively cost-

effective but also broadly accepted tool to achieve environmental ob-

jectives if they are well-designed. Still, interaction and equity impacts

are also considered. Similarly, Bergquist et al. (2013) argue that regu-

lation should rely solely on performance standards, including extended

compliance periods, thus allowing firms flexibility to select and imple-

ment the appropriate compliance measures. Finally, according to Sareen

and Haarstad (2021), regulators should be aware of the possible impacts

the implementations of their regulations have because there are limited

opportunities for regulations to be adapted (see, e.g., Geels et al., 2021).

In summary, regulation can contribute to innovation and, therefore,

to the transformation of socio-technical systems, but may also be a

barrier (e.g., Kemp et al., 1998 or Soininen et al., 2021) to their crea-

tivity, but also in the development and implementation of innovative

solutions.

2.2. Standardization

In the literature on transforming socio-technical systems, the rele-

vance of standards is mentioned mostly in the context of regulations,

which have been elaborated above. However, the self-regulatory char-

acter of standardization and standards has, in general, not been high-

lighted, although Blind (2016b) provides a comprehensive review of the

impacts of standards on innovation, but also on environmental objec-

tives as illustrated by De Vries and Verhagen (2016) related to buildings’

energy efficiency. Blind et al. (2017) show that the impact of regulations

and standards on innovation itself is significantly different, which is

even more important for answering our research question related to the

transformation of socio-technical systems. Whereas in stable environ-

ments, regulation has fewer negative implications than standards on

companies’ innovation efficiency, standards are much more favorable in

markets characterized by high technological uncertainty. They also play

different roles in the multi-level perspective, i.e., regulations belong to

the socio-technical regime, whereas standards are developed within

technological niches. Sometimes, governments and supranational or-

ganizations, particularly the European Commission, mandate actors in

the technological regimes and niches to develop standards to specify

regulations and directives (e.g., Volpato, 2017).

Although standards can contribute to transformations in socio-

technical regimes, only a few recent studies address this option in

addition to governmental regulations. For the bioeconomy, Falcone and

Imbert (2019) claim that standards can strengthen the current regula-

tory framework, whereas Gottinger et al. (2023) reveal its reciprocal

relations and their links to scientific publications following the approach

developed by Blind and Fenton (2022). Van der Vleuten (2019) points to

the role of standards for deep transformations, like Europe’s infra-

structure transition in the food sector. However, in general, even

comprehensive reviews, including proposals for future research agendas

(K¨

ohler et al., 2019) or proposals for policy interventions for sustain-

ability transitions (Kanger et al., 2020), still ignore this option.

Nevertheless, a few recent studies identify the role of standardization

in transformation studies. For example, within their taxonomy of in-

termediaries promoting sustainability transitions, Kivimaa et al. (2019)

characterize standardization bodies as niche intermediaries (see already

Howells, 2006 on standardization bodies as intermediaries for innova-

tion), developing a shared institutional infrastructure organizing

knowledge flows between local experiments and the niches. Eventually,

they produce and circulate even further knowledge via standards for the

transformations of the socio-technical regime as a whole. This can also

promote competition in transformations. For example, Li et al. (2016)

highlight that standardizing technologies for electric vehicles can help

reduce local protectionism in these markets.

Manning and Reinecke (2016) go one step further and elaborate on

the role of transnational standardization within sustainability transi-

tions of the global coffee sector because it can bring all relevant stake-

holders across national borders together. In particular, they show how a

modular governance architecture negotiated to integrate the interests of

heterogeneous stakeholders which were developed in local niche ex-

periments into a common international understanding of sustainability.

Similarly, Losacker and Liefner (2020) argue within their concept of

regional lead markets for environmental innovation that companies can

drive national, but more importantly international diffusion processes

via global standardization in order to gain a competitive advantage for

their innovations.

Although the phenomenon of battles of standards has a long tradition

(e.g., Shapiro and Varian, 1999), Reinecke et al. (2012) have only

recently identified the multiplicity of sustainability standards, this could

be solved by an approach called meta-standardization. However, this

idea has not been further taken up. Instead, Fuenfschilling and Binz

(2018) go beyond the implicit national focus in transition studies’ socio-

technical regime concepts and propose a ‘global’ regime perspective that

includes the multi-scalar actor networks and institutional rationalities.

These have an impact on transformation dynamics beyond national or

regional borders. Due to missing international regulations, they point to

the relevance of international non-governmental organizations, such as

the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). They

acknowledge global production networks and global value chains,

which also rely on technology standards (see Blind et al., 2018 on the

role of standards in European value chains). In addition, they point to

transformations of infrastructure sectors (Markard et al., 2012), which

are governed by international regulation not only through supranational

treaties but also standards and certifications, i.e., technology and man-

agement system standards released by ISO and their related certification

schemes. Overall, Fuenfschilling and Binz (2018) conclude that global

regimes are most relevant in socio-technical systems, where dominant

rationality is diffused based on international standards as scripts into

national regimes. Taking a slightly different perspective, Iizuka and

Ikeda (2021) exemplify the role of international standardization as an

open platform that allows interactions among diverse stakeholders

within healthcare robotics.

Following, Fuenfschilling and Binz (2018), but also Manning and

Reinecke (2016), Mi¨

orner and Binz (2021) identify an international

standard, which has not been developed within a national or regional

niche, but already on the global level. They consider standardization as

an arena characterized both by institutionalization and re-scaling pro-

cesses. The degree of institutionalization within global regimes increases

with the existence of international standards reflecting, and thus rein-

forcing, institutional rationalities of regional and national regimes.

Eventually, they conclude that standardization could be crucial for

supporting the existing global regime and for constructing, diffusing,

and institutionalizing ‘new’ (proto-) regime rationalities through the

participation of actors active in niches in standardization processes.

However, the investigated case study touches only on the margin of the

relevance of the regulatory framework. Still, the interaction between

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

regulation and standardization has not been fully elaborated, such as in

the global regime concept introduced by Fuenfschilling and Binz (2018).

Greenwood et al. (2017) highlight that in supplier-driven markets, a

‘smart’ mix of mandatory regulations and voluntary standards needs a

strong government in setting mandatory national regulations with

voluntary standards best viewed as supplements. Still, a conceptual

framework for the analysis of the interaction between regulation and

standardization within transformations of socio-technical regimes is

missing.

Besides the positive impacts of standards on innovation and the

transformation of socio-technical systems, their negative implications

for innovation also have to be mentioned, as summarized by Blind

(2016b). In the context of studies on socio-technical transformations,

Tang et al. (2020) and S¨

oderholm et al. (2017) find modest or even

insignificant impacts of institutional pressure via standards. Further-

more, Kiefer et al. (2019) and García-Quevedo et al. (2020) reveal that

standards and certifications are barriers to transformations also due to

high compliance costs; they might even act as obstacles to the explora-

tion of systemic innovation, e.g., in agriculture (Labarthe et al., 2021),

or radical innovations (Clougherty and Grajek, 2023).

In summary, the opportunities, but also the challenges of standard-

ization and standards which can contribute to the transformation of

socio-technical systems, have to be analyzed by taking their interfaces to

the regulatory framework into account.

2.3. Metrology

Metrology has so far not – in contrast to standards – been linked with

innovation studies in general and the analysis of transformations of

socio-technical systems. For example, King et al. (2017) conclude that

the relationships between metrology research, the use of measurement,

and other components of the innovation system have still not been

extensively researched. However, a significant share of standards is

related to measurement, although only very few are focused on

metrology in the narrower sense. Swann (2009) elaborated on the role of

measurement for R&D and innovation. In particular, he highlighted its

supporting function for process innovation. Finally, measurement can

help to demonstrate product characteristics. Based on the analysis of

case studies on metrology conducted by the U.S. National Institute of

Standards and Technology NIST, King et al. (2017) find that increasing

productivity, lowering transaction costs, and improving R&D efficiency

are the impacts mentioned the most. Consequently, Link (2021) could

reveal the productivity-enhancing impact of calibration tests as one

output of measurement science or metrology on the aggregate produc-

tivity of the U.S. economy.

Recently, Aswal (2020) linked not only metrology but the whole

quality infrastructure to the quadruple helix model of Carayannis and

Campbell (2009), extending the well-established triple helix model of

Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff (2000) dealing with the dynamics and evo-

lution of the relations between universities, industries,racy and preci-

sion of measurements which can be traced back to the International

Systems of Units, enables conformity assessment, i.e. calibration and

testing, certification, and inspection. Aswal (2020) claims that quality

infrastructure binds the four helices, namely government (1), university,

science and technology institutions (2), civil society & media (3), and

enterprises (4), that are responsible for the sustainable development of

the economy and living standards. However, he does not elaborate on

these links. Furthermore, the need for a robust quality infrastructure by

various stakeholders in the implementation of regulations, economic

growth, international trade, foreign direct investment, food safety,

environmental protection, sustainable energy provision, affordable

health, etc., is highlighted, but not further underpinned by empirical

evidence.

Due to the significant overlap with standardization, metrology can

also accompany the transformations of socio-technical systems and has,

therefore, to be integrated into the conceptual approach.

2.4. Conformity assessment

Certification, as one of the most discussed elements within the

literature in the context of quality infrastructure, is, in general, based on

standards.

According to ISO (ISO/IEC 17000:2020), conformity

assessment, as the demonstration that specified requirements (e.g.,

defined in standards or regulations) are fulfilled, includes activities such

as testing, inspection, or certification. The presentation of its output can

be either the form of a report or certificate, the form of a report or

certificate; the latter, however, needs to involve an independent “third-

party” attestation. Certification can be applied to products, management

systems, or persons. The most prominent certification schemes discussed

in the literature related to innovation, also due to their wide broad

applicability (systems are often applicable independent of sector and

company size) and data availability (e.g., annual ISO surveys) are the

ISO management system standards related to quality, i.e., the ISO 9001

series, or environmental management (ISO 14001 series).

Without considering the framework of transformations of socio-

technical systems, Demirel and Kesidou (2011) find that ISO 14001

certification effectively promotes end-of-pipeline technologies and

research and development related to eco-innovations in the U.K. Still,

this innovation - promoting impact - can also be observed based on a

country panel (Lim and Prakash, 2014). García-Quevedo et al. (2020)

reveal that environmental policies are driving the adoption of ISO

14001, and ISO 9001 because of their complementarity. Finally, in

highly internationalized sectors, firms are more likely to adopt ISO

14001. This acts as further empirical evidence for the important role of

not only international standards but also certification schemes within

global socio-technical regimes (Fuenfschilling and Binz, 2018).

Further energy efficiency or information security system schemes are

based on ISO or IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) stan-

dards. Related to sustainability, there are private organizations, like the

International Social and Environmental Accreditation and Labelling

Alliance (ISEAL Alliance) (Loconto and Fouilleux, 2014), which also

provide certification services based on their standards. In addition,

however, there are numerous voluntary sustainability standards which

can be linked to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (Bissinger et al.,

2020). Consequently, certification also plays a role in transforming

socio-technical regimes, particularly related to sustainability.

However, the literature review reveals only a few studies explicitly

highlighting the role of certifications in transforming socio-technical

systems. As mentioned above, Greenwood et al. (2017) highlight the

relevance of standards and related certifications in the transformation of

the housing sector in England. Siva et al. (2017) pointed to a certifica-

tion system implemented to support green building innovations in

Singapore. Enker and Morrison (2017) also apply the socio-technical

transition theory to the Australian building sector and identify build-

ing energy efficiency standards and related certification schemes as

important approaches. In addition, Binks et al. (2020) highlight the

importance of building standards to improve building services that

enhance energy efficiency already in the design phase. Also related to

the energy efficiency of buildings is smart metering. However,

Kocha´

nski et al. (2020) reveal that missing or insufficient standards are

inhibitors for the effective roll-out of smart meters in Europe.

In addition to the traditional building and energy sectors, standards,

certification, and labels play an increasing role in the European bio-

based economy (Ladu and Blind, 2017). Confirming D’Adamo et al.

(2020) claiming that certifications must be used to inform consumers

about bio-based products, Morone et al. (2021) revealed that the certi-

fication of bio-based products is indeed important for consumers’ pur-

chase decisions.

Although certification schemes are, in general, based on standards,

First-party (self-declaration) or second-party, e.g. by customers, conformity

assessment are other options of conformity assessment.

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

they create an added value for socio-technical transitions, in particular,

related to sustainability. Here, the certifications are based on interna-

tional environmental management system standards or energy effi-

ciency that are increasingly attractive for companies and other

organizations as they signal, with higher credibility the implementation

of their sustainability strategies. In addition, voluntary sustainability

standards are developed beyond formal standardization bodies, like ISO,

in numerous organizations, e.g., by ISEAL, which offer certification

services. Finally, certifications are increasingly considered by regulators

as proof of compliance with their technical regulations (Swann, 2010).

Therefore, certifications can be regarded as boosters of the imple-

mentation of both standards and regulations.

2.5. Accreditation

Accreditation conveying the formal demonstration of the compe-

tence of conformity assessment bodies (ISO/IEC 17000), i.e., not only

the layer above certification, but also the calibration, testing, and in-

spection bodies (e.g., Kellermann, 2019), has not yet been studied much

in the context of innovation in general (e.g., stated by Frenz and

Lambert, 2014). However, the limited research is not yet related to the

transformation of socio-technical systems. Fouilleux and Loconto (2017)

analyze the institutionalization of organic agriculture. The institutions

shaping the area are a tripartite standards regime of governance (TSR)

(Loconto and Busch, 2010). It links standard setting, certification, and

accreditation via markets for services that are complementary to the

market for certified organic products. At each of the three pillars of the

TSR, they analyze the development of the various markets and the role

different actors played in the organic field. Since they conclude that the

TSR is an effective heuristic approach to analyze contemporary global

regulation, it makes sense to use the TSR to integrate these three ele-

ments of quality infrastructure into the further development of global

socio-technical regimes introduced by Fuenfschilling and Binz (2018).

2.6. Overview of the quality infrastructure

Based on the presentation of the different elements of the quality

infrastructure, we present in Fig. 1 an overview of the whole system

from a European Union perspective, which has established a close link

between regulations and directives and harmonized European stan-

dards. The interplay of the various elements will be elaborated further in

the section about the coordination of multi-regime interactions.

3. The potential role of the quality infrastructure within socio-

technical transformations

Based on the insights from the literature review about the role of the

different components that make up the quality infrastructure, in

particular regulation and standardization, in addition to concrete mea-

sures or initiatives within the different components of quality infra-

structure, we start to integrate them into the multi-level perspective of

transitions (Geels, 2002) of socio-technical systems (Geels, 2004). Since

the quality infrastructure can be considered as an instrument or better

infrastructure of public policy, we follow the six steps of policy

Fig. 1. The Quality Infrastructure from a European Union Perspective (Source: own development based on national quality infrastructure by Guasch et al., 2007).

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

interventions introduced by Kanger et al. (2020). Another opportunity

would have been to follow the Dialectic Issue Lifecycle Model (DILC)

with its five phases (Penna and Geels, 2015), which is, however, less

linked to policies and institutions and more actor-based (e.g. Bod-

enheimer and Dütschke, 2021). In principle, the life cycles´stages of

technological innovation systems¸ i.e. formation, growth, maturity, and

decline (Markard, 2020), could also help to structure our analysis of the

different components´role the quality infrastructure has for the trans-

formation of socio-technical systems, as already done by Swann (2000)

related to standardization. However, the six policy intervention points

by Kanger et al. (2020) turned out to be effectively linked to the different

elements of the quality infrastructure, in particular the important co-

ordination of multi-regime interactions.

3.1. Stimulation of different niches

Although the stimulation of various niches is suggested to initiate

socio-technical transformations, it is also argued that emerging niche

technologies have to become mature enough to create solutions that can

eventually enter the market to support the further progress of socio-

technical transformations.

In general, regulations can promote investments in research and

development, often important preconditions for socio-technical trans-

formations. Most important are the various regimes of intellectual

property rights to incentivize companies or individual inventors (Carlin

and Soskice, 2006), in particular patents (Thumm, 2023). The same

applies to sector-specific regulations, like Orphan Drug Regulations

(Gamba et al., 2021), that try to incentivize drug development focusing

on rare diseases, which can be considered as rather narrow niches within

a rather specific socio-technical transformation.

As mentioned above, Kivimaa et al. (2019) characterize standardi-

zation bodies as niche intermediaries, following Howells (2006)

considering them as intermediaries for innovation in general. The

different economic functions of standards supporting research and

development elaborated by Blind and Gauch (2009) come into play in

the early development of niches. In particular, common terminology

standards are already relevant at the very beginning of new emerging

science fields to facilitate communication between scientists. Then,

measurement and testing standards, which are also closely related to

progress in complementary metrology, can help to reduce transaction

costs further in basic research. Since system innovations require the

support of the whole socio-technical regime, standardization bodies can

provide the platforms for all relevant stakeholders to exchange various,

sometimes heterogeneous and conflicting ideas in order to eventually

reach a consensus related to the directions of socio-technical trans-

formations. Therefore, the comprehensive inclusion of all stakeholders

is needed to increase the input legitimacy (Botzem and Dobusch, 2012)

of the standardization process and ultimately the developed standards,

which will help its successful implementation promoting successful

socio-technical transformations. Since these basic standards have the

characteristics of public goods (e.g., Kindleberger, 1983), public support

might be needed because the industry as the main driver of standards

development has insufficient incentives to initiate their development.

Consequently, national governments, like Germany with a specific

initiative or the European Commission within Horizon 2020 or Horizon

Europe, have set up specific funding programs or have made efforts

related to standardization, e.g. within the socio-technical trans-

formation of the bioeconomy. They are eligible for funding within

research programs to support standardization activities based on the

results of research projects.

As mentioned above, metrology might become relevant for socio-

technical transformations if progress in measurement and testing also

needs new metrology standards. Then, the European Metrology Program

for Innovation and Research (EMPIR) under Horizon 2020 or the

following European Partnership on Metrology (EMP) under Horizon

Europe might come into play, particularly related to funding metrology

or measurement science related to regulation and standards underpin-

ning public policies that address societal challenges.

Within the stimulation of niches, the development of standards has

only just started and there is not yet a sound basis for setting up certi-

fication schemes and accreditation programs. Therefore, these two

components are generally not yet relevant for the acceleration of niches.

However, certification bodies may try to enter promising emerging

future markets, e.g., for Artificial Intelligence, to contribute due to its

character of a general purpose technology to socio-technical trans-

formation across different sectors at early stages. This may lead to par-

allel developments of certification schemes, although standardization

processes, e.g., at ISO, have still not generated the necessary standards.

Accreditation bodies are only becoming active in this early phase if

public policy mandates them to develop accreditation programs for

emerging certification schemes that have significant implications for

socio-technical transformations.

3.2. Acceleration of niches

To accelerate niches to promote socio-technical transformations,

regulations can be used to address different actors depending on the type

of innovation (Pavitt, 1984) For example, according to Greenwood et al.

(2017), supplier-driven innovation requires a strong regulatory role of

the state, In addition, regulatory initiatives become relevant if they are

elements of broader science, technology and innovation policy initia-

tives, like the previous Lead Market Initiative

, whose success also de-

pends on the regulatory advantage of a country or the European Union

as a region. Therefore, on the one hand, regulatory initiatives can be

implemented to protect the first incumbents in niches following the

infant industry argument, but also to open the supply side for the market

entry of new actors, like start-ups, to increase the knowledge bases

within niches and eventually to promote socio-technical trans-

formations. On the other hand, however, regulation can promote the

competition between companies that are already active within the

niches, but also between different niches following different techno-

logical trajectories, e.g., electric vehicles vs. hydrogen-fueled vehicles,

to push the socio-technical transformation of mobility. Additionally,

regulations can also focus on potential actors on the demand side, like

buyers of electric cars. Here, subsidy schemes or preferential treatments,

e.g., regarding parking slots, can help to strengthen the demand side and

push the diffusion of new technologies and related innovations. How-

ever, safety regulations might also be helpful to increase customers’

trust in the new technologies and innovations.

Standardization bodies can be considered as a type of innovation

platform, which are important to accelerate the niches according to

Kanger et al. (2020). They are, therefore, not only niche intermediaries

as categorized by Kivimaa et al. (2019), but more general intermediaries

for innovation as already suggested by Howells (2006). Following

standardization activities related to terminology, testing and measuring

approaches, are relevant for the fast diffusion of new technologies and

innovations and, therefore, the acceleration of niches. Further economic

effects of standards are relevant for socio-technical transformations in

addition to their information providing function helping to reduce

transaction costs between the supply and the demand side. Here, the

following different economic functions of standards come into play.

First, standards reduce the variety of technologies or formats, which

might allow exploiting economies of scale via mass production, driving

down costs and eventually prices and increasing the number of potential

customers, who are contributing to market take-up and growth. In

addition, common standards might generate critical masses in the new

emerging markets by attracting new companies providing products and

services based on or being complementary to the published standards

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2

007:0860:FIN:en:PDF.

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

(Blind, 2016b).

Furthermore, interface or interoperability standards generate posi-

tive direct and indirect network externalities (Katz and Shapiro, 1994),

which are characterized by exponential mechanisms driving the fast

diffusion of new technologies and innovations being the base for socio-

technical transformations. Finally, before market entry or at its very

early stages, health, environmental, and safety standards can help

reduce risks and increase trust in new technologies, promoting their

acceptance and market uptake. These standards might also be used as

specifications of more general regulations, as in the New Approach or

the New Legislative Framework set up by the European Union. This was

recently reaffirmed in its new standardization strategy (European

Commission, 2022).

New metrology schemes, for which demand might already be iden-

tified in the first phase of niche stimulation, can eventually be launched

in the acceleration phase to create trust among businesses and con-

sumers (Swann, 2009). Furthermore, new areas, like e-mobility, also

become relevant for metrology, e.g., related to the requirements for the

charging infrastructure, an important element of socio-technical

transformations.

Whereas in the first stage of stimulating niches, certification and

accreditation are generally not yet relevant, their significance for socio-

technical transformations increases with the acceleration of niches. At

first, certification bodies can base the development of their new certi-

fication schemes on the now available standards. Then, complementary

accreditation bodies can start to launch programs for accrediting certi-

fication bodies in these new fields.

3.3. Destabilization of the regimes

Parallel to the development of niches, the incumbent regime has to

be destabilized to allow the niches to establish themselves. In this

context, regulations can play an important role for socio-technical

transformations by banning specific technologies and practices and

giving up the protection of incumbents, e.g., by removing market entry

barriers for new actors.

Whereas the role of regulations to destabilize regimes has been

acknowledged in the literature (e.g., Kanger et al., 2020), and in prac-

tice. The relevance of withdrawing existing standards has not yet been

explicitly considered in this context. However, in practice, we find, on

the one hand, that existing standards are replaced by completely new

ones. They may be incompatible with the follow-up standards, which

indeed means destabilizing the old technological regime. However, this

constellation is not often observed, an exceptional example are the

Internet Protocol versions IPv4 vs. IPv6. On the other hand, we see much

more often (in mobile communication standards as revealed by Baron

et al., 2016) that an older version of a standard is substituted by a new

but the most likely compatible version, e.g., from the previous 4G to the

new 5G standard of mobile communication, which is not a destabiliza-

tion of the regime.

In metrology, there have been a few radical changes of replacing

existing measurement schemes with new approaches, for example in

2019 switching the International System of Units to the approach that all

seven units are described by seven base units. For the future, it is also an

objective of redefining the kilogram by the number of atoms in a nearly

perfectly round, softball-sized sphere of silicon-28 atoms. Although

these changes are radical for metrology, they are less relevant for the

destabilization of whole socio-technical regimes. However, to promote

digital transformation in the area of metrology, a coordinated European

Metrology Cloud has been initiated, which tries to substitute analog

structures and can be, therefore, characterized as an initiative to

destabilize the current infrastructure to push socio-technical trans-

formations. Here, conventional analog calibration certificates, to prove

that a measuring instrument has been calibrated and how this has been

done, will be substituted by digital calibration certificates released by

the metrology institutes (Hackel et al., 2017).

Phenomena similar to the incremental evolution of standards can be

found in certification schemes. For example, the international manage-

ment system standards, e.g., ISO 9001 on quality or ISO 14001 on

environmental standards, have been revised several times by changing

underlying requirements or testing procedures, which are only incre-

mental changes. However, the introduction of the European Foundation

for Quality Management (EFQM) Excellence Model can be considered as

an attempt to destabilize the regime of ISO 9001 as well as the EU Eco-

Management and Audit Scheme (EMAS) challenging ISO 14001 (Pohle

et al., 2018). Here, different institutions enter a kind of war of different

standards (Shapiro and Varian, 1999), whose outcome can certainly

contribute to destabilizing an existing regime and pushing socio-

technical transformations.

3.4. Addressing the broader repercussions of regime destabilization

Following the regime’s destabilization, different stakeholders can be

significantly affected, which might require some compensation.

To allow a smoother transfer to a significantly different regulatory

regime, the compliance period could be extended, or exceptions can be

allowed for specific affected companies and other stakeholders. In

Germany, incumbents, which had made heavy investments, such as in

nuclear power plants or other infrastructures, have been compensated

following the decision to stop nuclear energy production in order to

push the socio-technical transformation of the energy system.

Although companies will not be compensated if a new industry

standard has been released, we can observe both the coexistence of

different generations of standards, like 4G and 5G, in case of mobile

communication and transition periods until a new generation of the

standard will be implemented, because at the end the implementation of

a standard is – in contrast to a regulation – voluntary.

However, changes in the metrology regimes can significantly influ-

ence metrology institutes and test laboratories. In particular, the digi-

talization of metrology, like digital calibration certificates, might make

some laboratories offering calibration superfluous. Here, compensation

schemes might need to be implemented, e.g., providing further training

of staff employed in the predecessor institutions.

Similar to standards, we also observe both the coexistence of

different editions of international management system standards, like

ISO 9001 or ISO 14001, and transition periods from one generation to

the next. These approaches allow companies to change the internal

quality or environmental management smoothly. Optimizing the

compliance costs helps companies to stay in the market and to

contribute to socio-technical transformations.

The bodies responsible for accreditation could offer to extend the

accreditation of the already accredited certification bodies when they

have launched a new and probably more challenging accreditation

scheme contributing to socio-technical transformations. Another option

offered by the actors in the markets for certified goods and services

would be to accept – at least for a transition period – certifications issued

by non-accredited certification bodies.

3.5. Coordination of multi-regime interaction

Since the trajectories of socio-technical systems are developing not

only endogenously, but are also influenced by external forces, e.g., other

systems, they are, therefore, eventually the outcome of interdependent

developments in various systems (Geels, 2005; Konrad et al., 2008;

Schot and Kanger, 2018).

Concerning regulations, different coordination aspects have to be

considered. In addition to cross-sectoral regulations, such as the General

Product Safety Directive (2001/95/EC) in the European Union, there are

many more sector-specific regulations. However, since socio-technical

systems are increasingly rooted in different sectors, it is necessary to

coordinate regulations across sectors to avoid inconsistencies or even

contradictions. For example, there could be an interface between

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

regulations for the construction sector, and those for the energy sector,

which might be related to energy efficiency of buildings and the com-

mon transformation of several socio-technical systems. Therefore, new

regulations addressing the construction sector should consider

improving energy efficiency. In addition, the OECD (2021) recently

called for more international coordination, particularly in setting up

regulatory framework conditions for new emerging markets com-

plementing the approach of global socio-technical regimes by Fuenf-

schilling and Binz (2018). Here, the California effect (Vogel, 1997) and

the Brussel effect (Bradford, 2012) have also to be mentioned. They

focus on the export of originally national regulations, e.g., related to

environmental regulations following the logic of the Porter Hypothesis,

but also recently to the European General Data Protection Regulation

(GDPR) (Niebel, 2021) being relevant for the transformation of the data

economy.

In addition to the internal consistency of regulations, there is also – at

least in some countries – a strong link to the body of standards. For

example, South Korea implemented ISO/IEC 27018 for data protection

in cloud computing as a national regulation (L¨

ohe and Blind, 2015). In

Germany, implementing an information security management system

according to ISO/IEC 27001 is often obligatory for institutions running

critical infrastructures (Mirtsch et al., 2021). The New Legislative

Framework (NLF https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/goods/

new-legislative-framework_en) in the European Union New Approach

foresees the division of work by the European Commission responsible

for the more general directives and regulations, which are eventually

specified by harmonized European standards. Sometimes, the European

Commission launches mandates to the European standardization bodies

to develop new harmonized European standards to complement already

existing European directives or regulations related to socio-technical

transformations, like the Green Deal. In some cases, standards might

make the development of regulations unnecessary. There are different

constellations of relationships between regulation and standardization,

which require careful coordination to exploit their possible synergies to

influence the development of different regimes efficiently, e.g., to pro-

mote the development of infrastructure for electric cars (Wiegmann

et al., 2017).

Within standardization, different regimes might also have to be co-

ordinated. In addition to checking the consistency of the stock of stan-

dards, standardization has been identified as a platform contributing to

technology convergence (Gauch and Blind, 2015), which requires the

coordination of the bodies of standards stemming from different socio-

technical regimes.

Furthermore, metrology has to be coordinated with efforts on the

regulatory side and with standardization. Here, interfaces have been

implemented between the research program EMPIR or in the future

between EMP and the standardization activities within the European

standardization institutes.

Similarly, the consistency among certification schemes has to be

assured, e.g., by common high-level audit approaches covering different

certification schemes. Here, mutual or multilateral recognition agree-

ments (MRAs/MLAs), which make multiple testing and certification

efforts superfluous, can help push niches towards global socio-technical

regimes, an aspect not considered by Fuenfschilling and Binz (2018).

In order to illustrate the recursive relationships between the different

elements of the quality infrastructure, we summarize them in Table 1.

3.6. Tilting the landscape

In its early stages, the multi-level perspective treated the landscape,

which include demographical trends, political ideologies, societal

values, and macroeconomic patterns (Geels, 2011), as exogenous

shaping niches and the socio-technical regimes, e.g., in most of the

transition paths presented by Geels and Schot (2007). However, the

reciprocal relationship of socio-technical regimes influencing the land-

scape has recently been considered, e.g., by Schot and Kanger (2018)

and Kanger and Schot (2019), but only analyzed in very few studies

according to the review by Kanger et al. (2020). For example, Imbert

et al. (2017) describe the case of landscape tilting in the area of bio-

energy through strategic multi-level action combining EU and member

states strategies. This kind of reciprocal influence can also be found in

the concept of global socio-technical regimes by Fuenfschilling and Binz

(2018), which can be considered part of the global landscape – at least

from the perspective of national or regional socio-technical regimes.

Here, international standardization is characterized by the broad

participation of national stakeholders negotiating at the global level to

achieve collectively binding arrangements, i.e., international standards.

Eventually, they create more general framework conditions for changing

the dynamics and directionality of socio-technical systems on the na-

tional level.

Regulations are certainly an effective instrument which contribute to

tilting the landscape. In particular, for phasing out existing technologies,

like fluorescent light bulbs, coal-based energy production, or nuclear

power plants, rigorous changes in the regulatory frameworks are

necessary. However, due to missing international regulations, negotia-

tions and coordination are necessary to use the regulatory framework

Table 1

Interrelations between the different elements of quality infrastructure.

Influence from..

… to …

Regulation Standardization Metrology Conformity assessment Accreditation

Regulation Internal consistency /International

coordination

Making regulation

superfluous

Allowing generic

regulation (limited to

“essential

requirements”)

Approval relief

(providing standardized

measurements to fulfill

legal requirements)

Approval relief (CE

marking visible for

market surveillance

authorities)

Approval relief (ensuring

consistent quality of

Conformity Assessment (CA)

results through competent

CA bodies)

Standardization In EU.: New Approach (ensuring wide

applicability through the presumption of

conformity and quality of

standardization process using

Harmonized Standards consultants)

Internal consistency/

International standards

/allowing MRAs and

MLAs

Need for standards Need for standards (e.

g., ISO/IEC 17000

series)

Need for standards (e.g.,

ISO/IEC 17000 series)

Metrology Part of regulation in the regulated area Base for metrology Internal consistency/

international

coordination

N/A Accredited calibration bodies

/allowing MRAs/MLAs

Conformity

Assessment

Regulatory relief Base for certification

schemes

Consistent quality of CA

results through

standardized

measurements

Internal consistency/

International

certification schemes/

allowing MRAs/MLAs

Accredited certification

bodies /allowing MRAs/

MLAs

Accreditation Part of regulation, like GDPR or

Cybersecurity Act

N/A N/A N/A Internal/ International

coordination (IAF)

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

effectively to promote innovation (OECD, 2021) and eventually to push

transformations of socio-technical systems on the national and regional

levels.

In contrast, international standards can be developed from the

beginning within the international standardization bodies, as revealed

by Fuenfschilling and Binz (2018), allowing their timely parallel

implementation in companies and other organizations on the national

level, in particular in latecomer countries (Choi et al., 2014). However,

it has to be noted that the implementation of standards is in general

voluntary in contrast to the obligatory regulations. However, with

putting all standards at ISO and other organizations, like IEC and ITU

(International Telecommunication Union), into the context of the SDGs

(ISO, 2018), international standardization contributes to tilting the

landscape which eventually influences the socio-technical trans-

formations on a global level. This reorientation has been recently

confirmed when the challenges of climate change were addressed by ISO

standards in 2021 in the so-called London Declaration (ISO, 2021). In

addition to the reorientation of the international standardization bodies

towards sustainability, other informal standardization organizations

have been developed in sustainability-related areas, like ISEAL as dis-

cussed above. Consequently, they have developed numerous voluntary

sustainability standards (Bissinger et al., 2020). Other examples of na-

tional attempts to tilt the landscape related to standardization are

China’s standardization project 2035 (e.g., Seaman, (2020), or Rühlig,

(2020)) or the recently published European standardization strategy

(European Commission, 2022) addressing Europe’s twin green and

digital transformation, but also to secure European values. Further ac-

tivities within standardization bodies are the development of roadmaps

for emerging technologies, like Artificial Intelligence (AI) or the Circular

Economy, which aim to use standards to tilt existing landscapes, e.g.

ethical concerns regarding AI.

The revision of International Systems of Units in 2018 is certainly a

significant change within metrology, which has no immediate implica-

tions on socio-technical transformations in contrast to the institutional

changes of privatizing originally public metrology institutes. However,

the progressing digitalization has started in several niches and is now

changing the socio-technical regimes and potentially also the landscape

in metrology. Therefore, the already started and further progressing

digitalization of the whole national, European, and even global

metrology system can tilt the metrology landscape by allowing global

approaches challenging national infrastructures, having eventually im-

plications on specific socio-technical regimes and niches.

Regarding conformity assessment and specifically certification we

can observe only phenomena which are eventually based on the changes

in the direction of standardization, e.g., towards the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs), and the eventually published standards, that

Table 2

The relevance of the elements of quality infrastructure for different policy interventions points to trigger socio-technical transformations.

Intervention point Regulation Standardization Metrology Conformity assessment Accreditation

Stimulation of

different niches

IPRs (patents)

Regulations related to

R&D incentives

(Orphan drugs)

Promote the development of

standards supporting

terminology and measurement

and testing (e.g., via programs,

like Horizon 2020)

Promote the development of

metrology standards (e.g., via

programs like European

Metrology Program for

Innovation and Research

(EMPIR))

Not relevant Not relevant

Acceleration of the

niches

Demand subsidies, e.g.,

electric vehicles

Standards allowing the

exploitation of economies of

scale and reducing transaction

costs Use standards to create

trust among consumers/

customers and increase network

effects

Use new metrology

approaches to create trust

among consumers/customers

Use certification and labels

to foster trust among

consumers /customers

Broaden the scope of

existing certification

schemes to de-limit to

existing technologies

Use accreditation to foster

trust among consumers/

customers

Destabilization of

the regimes

Giving up existing

regulations, e.g.,

protecting incumbents

Promote the application of new

standards to substitute the

application of existing standards

Replace existing

measurement systems with

new systems

Digital Calibration

Certification

Adjust existing certification

schemes, e.g., by changing

underlying requirements or

testing procedures

Accredit new certification

bodies and deny

accreditation for incumbent

certification bodies (e.g., by

restricting certification to

notified bodies like in the

EU)

Addressing the

broader

repercussions of

regime

destabilization

Compensate

incumbents for

disadvantages created

by new regulations

Expand compliance

period related to new

regulations

Allow the coexistence of

standards

Expand transition period to a

new generation of standards (e.

g., mobile communication)

Compensate calibration

bodies which are affected by

changes of regulations

Allow the coexistence of

certification schemes.

Expand the validity period

of expiring certification

schemes

Prolong accreditation for

incumbent certification

bodies

Accept certifications from

non-accredited certification

bodies

Compensate closed

accreditation bodies

following EU regulation

Coordination of

multi- regime

interaction

Coordinate regulations

across sectors (e.g.,

construction and

energy sector)

Use international

standards as

regulations

Use standards to

specify regulations

Check the consistency of stock

of standards

Use standardization to promote

technology convergence

Coordinate standards with

regulations (NLF), including

using standards as regulations

Coordinate regulations, but

also standardization (CEN

CENELEC Working Group

Standardization Innovation

and Research vs. EMPIR)

with metrology

Check consistency among

certification schemes

Coordinate standards and

certification schemes (ISO

9001, ISO 14001 editions)

via common high-level

structure and joint audits

Use certificates to relieve

regulatory burden

Align regulations with

accreditation

Avoid multiple testing costs

by relying on mutual or

multilateral recognition

agreements (MRAs/MLAs)

Tilting the

landscape

Alter the regulatory

framework conditions

enabling change in

directionality of socio-

technical systems

Alignment of international

standardization along SDGs, in

particular, climate change

European (technological

sovereignty) and national

standardization strategies

Standardization roadmaps

Digitalization of metrology Conformity assessment

schemes related to SDGs

Not relevant

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

are the basis for certifications schemes (e.g., Bissinger et al., 2020). In

addition to some institutional changes of certification bodies, e.g., the

disentangling of standardization and certification into two institutions

in Spain, which has only limited implications for tilting landscapes, two

phenomena already mentioned have to be reiterated. First, governments

take international standards and implement them as national regula-

tions, which increases the international and reduces the national influ-

ence in setting rules. Second, successful certification can already be a

requirement for companies’ market access, e.g., to critical in-

frastructures. Finally, such certifications can lead to a “regulatory relief”

for companies, i.e., fewer costly compliance efforts related to regulations

(Swann, 2010). These opportunities must be seen in close connection to

using regulations to tilt existing landscapes.

3.7. Summary

The following Table 2 summarizes what has been derived when

analyzing the relevance of the different elements of quality infrastruc-

ture for the different intervention points within the framework of socio-

technical systems’ multi-level perspective.

The findings of attributing the different components of the quality

infrastructure to the six steps of policy interventions are summarized in a

comprehensive matrix. Overall, we confirm the important role of radical

regulations following the tradition of the Porter Hypothesis for the

stimulation of different niches. Moreover, since research and develop-

ment are important for the emergence of niches, the effective interfaces

to standardization, including metrology (Blind and Gauch, 2009), have

to be assured at least for public-funded research and innovation pro-

grams, like Horizon Europe, as highlighted in the standardization

strategy published by the European Commission (2022).

Based on the output of standardization processes, the acceleration of

niches can be promoted by exploiting the various economic functions of

standards, e.g., economies of scale and network effects. Here, certifica-

tion schemes by accredited conformity assessment bodies can play a

supporting and enhancing role.

The destabilization of the regime certainly requires significant

changes to the regulatory framework. In standardization substituting

existing standards by incompatible follow-up solutions has taken place

on very few occasions, e.g., standards’ battles. The same applies to

conformity assessment and accreditation. However, we have seen some

significant changes in the metrology system, yet only a few, like its

digitalization, which might be able to destabilize the whole regime.

Since the destabilization of regimes often has broader repercussions,

policymakers have to address them by changing the regulatory frame-

work or launching other public policies, e.g., financial support for those

organizations heavily affected. Standardization and the other elements

of quality infrastructure might be less effective for addressing these very

different repercussions due to limited instruments, lack of incentives and

responsibility of the involved stakeholders, i.e., above all industry.

Since regimes are not isolated, but interact with other regimes, their

interactions must be coordinated to facilitate socio-technical trans-

formations. It is not only necessary to coordinate national regulations

across sectors, e.g., between the construction and the energy sector to

increase energy efficiency, but also at the international level, as recently

pointed out by the OECD (2021), to address global challenges. Since

there are in general no international regulations, but international

standards in many areas, the latter can play an important role in

transforming global socio-technical regimes (Fuenfschilling and Binz,

2018). It is important to mention that international standards do not

have to be developed in national or regional niches and then transferred

to the international level as the next step. They can even develop at the

international level and then be implemented at the national level (see,

for example, Mi¨

orner and Binz, 2021). Furthermore, it has to be taken

into account that standards can also be used to specify the technical

details of the more general regulations, which require the coordination

of another interface. This is challenging indeed as recently reconfirmed

in the EU standardization strategy (European Commission, 2022). In

addition, coordination within standardization is needed, similar to the

alignment between different sector-specific regulations. This pressure

will increase with the progressing convergence of technologies (Gauch

and Blind, 2015). Furthermore, the metrology system has to be aligned

both with the regulatory framework and the stock of standards. Finally,

the interfaces between different certification schemes, like the interna-

tional quality or environmental management system standards and

accreditation, have to be coordinated.

For tilting the landscape as the last policy intervention point, the

regulatory framework conditions – if possible coordinated on the in-

ternational level – have to be altered to enable the change in the

directionality of socio-technical systems, e.g., to address the challenges

of climate change. Regarding standardization, such tilting of the land-

scape has been tried by aligning the international standardization ac-

tivities towards the objectives of SDGs. It has just recently put climate

change into the focus. However, Blind and Heß (2023) reveal that

standardization is – based on the assessment of the stakeholders – still

most closely linked to the SDG 9 focusing on industry, innovation, and

infrastructure; they have also revealed that the transition towards the

SDGs and, therefore, the tilting of the landscape requires definitely

several years more work on this component of the quality infrastructure.

At the European, but also at the national level, the development and

release of standardization strategies are indications for trying to put

standardization into the equation, allowing the landscape to tilt towards

the SDGs and address other geopolitical challenges, e.g., related to as-

suring technological sovereignty. Following the tilt of the landscape

within standardization towards the SDGs reducing the relative impor-

tance of the economic function of standards, certification schemes

accompanied by eco and energy labels followed this change towards

sustainability, including the emergence of new standardization and

conformity assessment bodies. In addition to the tilt of the landscape

towards sustainability, the progressing digitalization has also reached

the quality infrastructure and its components, e.g., in the digitalization

of certification, accreditation, and metrology.

4. Conclusion

This paper has condensed findings from the literature on quality

infrastructure and its components, particularly regulation and stan-

dardization. It has put them into the context of the conceptual frame-

work of six policy intervention points related to sustainability

transitions presented by Kanger et al. (2020).

We showed that the current literature on the elements of the quality

infrastructure is focused on regulation and standardization, implicitly

on innovation, but not explicitly on transforming socio-technical re-

gimes, in particular, to trigger the stimulation and acceleration of

niches. However, both the other elements of the quality infrastructure

and the other policy intervention points have been neglected despite the

crucial coordination of multi-regime interaction.

In addition, we have also revealed the close interaction between

standards and regulation. Consequently, the relevance of coordinating

multi regime interactions has been confirmed. However, this coordina-

tion has to be considered in relation to the different components of the

quality infrastructure, at the latest for the acceleration of niches and not

only after the destabilization of regimes.

Our approach leads us then to the derivation of policy implications

related to the role of the different quality infrastructure components for

the transformation of socio-technical systems structured along the pol-

icy intervention points introduced by Kanger et al. (2020). First, the

stimulation of niches needs crucial interventions by regulation. Second,

however, the regulator should exploit the potential of the capacities and

incentives of the stakeholders involved in standardizing the comple-

mentary stimulation of niches. Third, the acceleration of niches,

particularly across borders, can benefit from the properties of standards

endorsed by conformity assessment and accreditation. Regulation is

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

generally more effective in destabilizing regimes than standardization,

possibly accompanied by conformity assessment and accreditation.

Similarly, repercussions of regime destabilization can mainly be

addressed by the regulator, complemented by further public policies.

However, the coordination of multi regime interactions requires the

synchronization of rules within the regulatory framework and the body

of standards as well as between themselves and metrology, conformity

assessment, and accreditation. For tilting the landscape, again, the

regulatory power of the government is an essential driver. However,

significant shifts can also be achieved within standardization and

metrology, followed by conformity assessment and accreditation.

Although regulation is essential both for triggering the stimulation of

niches and tilting the landscape, standardization and metrology

accompanied by conformity assessment and accreditation can help

accelerate the development of niches and the need to be integrated with

the coordination of the multi regime interaction. In summary, the

quality infrastructure in total and its single elements might play

different roles in the various types of transformation pathways, e.g.,

purposive transitions vs. emergent transformations.

As a general challenge, we would call for a more theoretical reflec-

tion of the role of the quality infrastructure, its components, and their

interactions with socio-technical transformation so that the empirical

evidence could be coupled with analytical reasoning. For example, we

did not consider the agency of the involved actors, i.e., that they build

the institutions the quality infrastructure is based on driven by their

interests and enabled by their means, which might lead to a delay in

socio-technical transformations.

Nonetheless, it has revealed promising options for future research.

However, further empirical work, including other sources and meth-

odologies, such as interviews or surveys, remains to be done in order to

analyze all elements of the quality infrastructure. This includes their

possible negative implications for the transformation of different socio-

technical regimes in other countries, in particular outside the European

Union.

CRediT authorship contribution statement

Knut Blind: Conceptualization, Methodology; Knut Blind: Writing-

Original draft preparation. Knut Blind: Investigation. Knut Blind: Su-

pervision; Knut Blind: Writing-Reviewing and Editing.

Data availability

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Acknowledgments

Knut Blind has received funding within the project SYSTRA, an in-

ternal programme of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innova-

tion Research, ISI. The author thanks two reviewers for the valuable

comments, which helped to improve the paper significantly.

References

Ambec, S., Cohen, M.A., Elgie, S., Lanoie, P., 2013. The Porter hypothesis at 20: can

environmental regulation enhance innovation and competitiveness? Rev. Environ.

Econ. Policy 7 (1), 2–22.

Ashford, N.A., Hall, R.P., 2018. Achieving global climate and environmental goals by

governmental regulatory targeting. Ecol. Econ. 152, 246–259.

Aswal, D.K., 2020. Quality infrastructure of india and its importance for inclusive

national growth. MAPAN 35, 139–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12647-020-

00376-3.

Baron, J., Pohlmann, T., Blind, K., 2016. Essential patents and standard dynamics. Res.

Policy 45, 1762–1773. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.05.004.

Bauknecht, D., Dahl Andersen, A., Tornes Dunne, K., 2020. Challenges for electricity

network governance in whole system change: insights from energy transition in

Norway. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 37, 318–331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

eist.2020.09.004.

BEIS, BSI, NPL, UKAS, 2021. Standards for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: HMG-NQI

Action Plan to Unlock the Value of Standards for Innovation.

Bergquist, A.-K., S¨

oderholm, K., Kinneryd, H., Lindmark, M., S¨

oderholm, P., 2013.

Command-and-control revisited: environmental compliance and technological

change in Swedish industry 1970–1990. Ecol. Econ. 85, 6–19.

Binks, A., Head, B., Lant, P., Kenway, S., 2020. The transition to improved water-related

energy management: enabling contexts for policy innovation. Water 12, 557.

https://doi.org/10.3390/w12020557.

Bissinger, K., Brandi, C., Cabrera de Leicht, S., Fiorini, M., Schleifer, P., Fernandez de

Cordova, S., Ahmed, N., 2020. Linking Voluntary Standards to Sustainable

Development Goals. https://www.intracen.org/uploadedFiles/intracenorg/Content/

Publications/LinkingVoluntaryStandardstoSustainableDevelopmentGoals_Hi-res.

pdf.

Blind, K., 2015. From standards to quality infrastructure: a review of impact studies and

an outlook. In: Delimatsis, P. (Ed.), The Law, Economics and Politics of International

Standardisation (Cambridge International Trade and Economic Law). Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, pp. 58–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/

CBO9781316423240.004.

Blind, K., 2016a. The impact of regulation on innovation. In: Edler, J., Cunningham, P.,

G¨

ok, A., et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Innovation Policy Impact. Edward Elgar

Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 450–482.

Blind, K., 2016b. The impact of standardisation and standards on innovation. In:

Edler, J., Cunningham, P., G¨

ok, A., et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Innovation Policy

Impact. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp. 423–449.

Blind, K., 2022. Standards and innovation - What does the research say?. In: ISO https://

www.iso.org/publication/PUB100466.html.

Blind, K., Fenton, A., 2022. Standard-relevant publications: evidence, processes and

influencing factors. Scientometrics 127 (1), 577–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s11192-021-04210-8.

Blind, K., Gauch, S., 2009. Research and standardisation in nanotechnology: evidence

from Germany. J. Technol. Transf. 34 (3), 320–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/

s10961-008-9089-8.

Blind, K., Heß, P., 2023. Stakeholder perceptions of the role of standards for addressing

the sustainable development goals. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 37, 180–190. https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.spc.2023.02.016.

Blind, K., Petersen, S.S., Riillo, C.A., 2017. The impact of standards and regulation on

innovation in uncertain markets. Res. Policy 46 (1), 249–264. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.respol.2016.11.003.

Blind, K., Mangelsdorf, A., Niebel, C., Ramel, F., 2018. Standards in the global value

chains of the European Single Market. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 25 (1), 28–48. https://

doi.org/10.1080/09692290.2017.1402804.

Bodenheimer, M., Dütschke, E., 2021. Lost in transition? Disentangling agency, activities

and actor roles. In: IST Conference Proceedings.

Botzem, S., Dobusch, L., 2012. Standardization cycles: a process perspective on the

formation and diffusion of transnational standards. Organ. Stud. 33 (5–6), 735–760.

Bradford, A., 2012. The Brussels effect. Northwest. Univ. Law Rev. 107, 1.

Brouillat, E., Maïder, S.J., 2020. Mind the gap: investigating the impact of implemen-

tation gaps on cleaner technology transition. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 158 (C),

S0040162520309719.

Brown, N., Knee, P., Blind, K., 2022. The Role of Standardisation in Support of Emerging

Technologies in the UK. BEIS.

Carayannis, E.G., Campbell, D.F.J., 2009. Mode 3 and quadruple helix: toward a 21st

century fractal innovation ecosystem. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 46, 201–234.

Carlin, W., Soskice, D., 2006. Macroeconomics: Imperfections, Institutions & Policies.

Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Choi, D.G., Hyun, O.-S., Hong, J.-I., Kang, B.-G., 2014. Standards as catalyst for national

innovation and performance – a capability assessment framework for latecomer

countries. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 25 (9–10), 969–985. https://doi.org/

10.1080/14783363.2014.893082.

Clougherty, J.A., Grajek, M., 2023. Decertification in quality-management standards by

incrementally and radically innovative organizations. Res. Policy 52 (1), 104647.

D’Adamo, I., Falcone, P.M., Imbert, E., Morone, P., 2020. A socio-economic indicator for

EoL strategies for bio-based products. Ecol. Econ. 178, 106794.

De Vries, H.J., Verhagen, W.P., 2016. Impact of changes in regulatory performance

standards on innovation: a case of energy performance standards for newly-built

houses. Technovation 48–49, 56–68.

Demirel, P., Kesidou, E., 2011. Stimulating different types of eco-innovation in the U.K.:

government policies and firm motivations. Ecol. Econ. 70 (8), 1546–1557.

Dunphy, D.C., Griffiths, A., Benn, S., 2007. Organizational Change for Corporate

Sustainability: A Guide for Leaders and Change Agents of the Future, Seconded.

Routledge, London, New York.

Edler, J., K¨

ohler, J., Wydra, S., Salas Giron´

es, E., Schiller, K., Braun, A., 2021.

Dimensions of systems and transformations: Towards an integrated framework for

system transformations. In: Working Paper Sustainability and Innovation, S 03/

2021. Fraunhofer ISI.

Enker, R.A., Morrison, G.M., 2017. Analysis of the transition effects of building codes and

regulations on the emergence of a low carbon residential building sector. Energ.

Buildings 156, 40–50.

Etzkowitz, H., Leydesdorff, L., 2000. The dynamics of innovation: from national systems

and mode 2 to a triple helix of university-industry-government relations. Res. Policy

29, 109–123.

European Commission, 2022. An E.U. Strategy on Standardisation: Setting Global

Standards in Support of a Resilient, Green and Digital E.U. Single Market. COM

(2022) 31 final.

Falcone, P.M., Imbert, E., 2019. Tackling uncertainty in the bio-based Economy. Int. J.

Stand. Res. 17 (1), 74–84.

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

Fouilleux, E., Loconto, A., 2017. Voluntary standards, certification, and accreditation in

the global organic agriculture field: a tripartite model of techno-politics. Agric. Hum.

Values 34, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9686-3.

Frenz, M., Lambert, R., 2014. The economics of accreditation. NCSLI Measure 9 (2),

42–50.

Fuenfschilling, L., Binz, C., 2018. Global socio-technical regimes. Res. Policy 47 (4),

735–749.

Gamba, S., Magazzini, L., Pertile, P., 2021. R&D and market size: who benefits from

orphan drug legislation? J. Health Econ. 80, 102522 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jhealeco.2021.102522.

García-Quevedo, G., Kesidou, E., Martínez-Ros, E., 2020. Driving sectoral sustainability

via the diffusion of organizational eco-innovations. Bus. Strateg. Environ. 29 (3),

1437–1447.

Gauch, S., Blind, K., 2015. Technological convergence and the absorptive capacity of

standardisation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 91, 236–249. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.techfore.2014.02.022.

Gaziulusoy, A.I., Brezet, H., 2015. Design for system innovations and transitions: a

conceptual framework integrating insights from sustainability science and theories

of system innovations and transitions. J. Clean. Prod. 108 (Part A), 558–568. https://

doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.066.

Geels, F.W., 2002. Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a

multi-level perspective and a case-study. Res. Policy 31 (8), 1257–1274.

Geels, F.W., 2004. From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems.

Insights about dynamics and change from sociology and institutional theory. Res.

Policy 33 (6–7), 897–920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015.

Geels, F.W., 2005. The dynamics of transitions in socio-technical systems: a multi-level

analysis of the transition pathway from horse-drawn carriages to automobiles

(1860–1930). Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 17 (4), 445–476.

Geels, F.W., 2011. The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to

seven criticisms. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 1 (1), 24–40.

Geels, F.W., Schot, J., 2007. Typology of socio-technical transition pathways. Res. Policy

36, 399–417.

Geels, F.W., Sareen, S., Hook, A., Sovacool, B.K., 2021. Navigating implementation

dilemmas in technology-forcing policies: a comparative analysis of accelerated smart

meter diffusion in the Netherlands, U.K., Norway, and Portugal (2000-2019). Res.

Policy 50 (7), 104272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104272.

German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, 2020. The National Hydrogen

Strategy, Berlin.

Giddens, A., 1984. The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structuration.

University of California Press, Berkeley.

Gonçalves, J., Peuckert, J., 2012. The contributions of quality infrastructure to national

innovation systems: implications for development policy. In: Siyanbola, W.,

Olamade, O. (Eds.), Innovation Systems and Capabilities in Developing Regions:

Concepts, Issues and Cases (A. Egbetokun, Ed.), 1st ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/

10.4324/9781315588674.

Gottinger, A., Ladu, L., Blind, K., 2023. Standardisation in the context of Science and

Regulation: an analysis of the Bio economy. Environ. Sci. Pol. 147, 188–200.

Greenstone, M., 2003. Estimating regulation-induced substitution: the effect of the clean

air act on water and ground pollution. Am. Econ. Rev. 93 (2), 442–448.

Greenwood, D., Congreve, A., King, M., 2017. Streamlining or watering down? Assessing

the ’smartness’ of policy and standards for the promotion of low and zero-carbon

homes in England 2010–15. Energy Policy 110, 490–499. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

enpol.2017.08.033.

Guasch, J.L., Racine, J.-L., S´

anchez, I., Diop, M., 2007. Quality Systems and Standards for

a Competitive Edge. Directions in Development; Trade. World Bank, Washington,

DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/6768.

Hackel, S., H¨

artig, F., Hornig, J., Wiedenh¨

ofer, T., 2017. The Digital Calibration

Certificate. PTB-Mitteilungen 127 (2017), Heft 4. https://doi.org/10.7795/

310.20170499.

Hansmeier, H., Koschatzky, K., Zenker, A., Stahlecker, T., 2022. Regional Perspectives on

Socio-technical Transitions. In: Combining Research Insights from Geography of

Innovation and Transition Studies (=Working Papers Firms and Region No. R2/

2022). Fraunhofer ISI, Karlsruhe.

Hermwille, L., 2016. The role of narratives in socio-technical transitions - Fukushima and

the energy regimes of Japan, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc.

Sci. 11, 237–246.

Howells, J., 2006. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res.

Policy 35, 715–728.

Iizuka, M., Ikeda, Y., 2021. Regulation and innovation under the 4th industrial

revolution: the case of a healthcare robot, HAL by Cyberdyne. Technovation 108,

102335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102335.

Imbert, E., Ladu, L., Morone, P., Quitzow, R., 2017. Comparing policy strategies for a

transition to a bioeconomy in Europe: the case of Italy and Germany. Energy Res.

Soc. Sci. 33, 70–81.

ISO, 2018. Contributing to the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals with ISO Standards.

ISBN 978-92-67-10790-5.

ISO, 2021. The London Declaration. https://www.iso.org/ClimateAction/London Decla

ration.html.

Johnstone, P., Kivimaa, P., 2018. Multiple dimensions of disruption, energy transition

and industrial policy. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 37, 260–265.

Johnstone, P., Rogge, K., Kivimaa, P., Fratini, C., Primmer, E., Stirling, A., 2020. Waves

of disruption in clean energy transitions: Socio-technical dimensions of system

disruption in Germany and the United Kingdom. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 59, 101287.

Kanger, L., Schot, J., 2019. Deep transitions: theorizing the long-term patterns of socio-

technical change. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 32, 7–21.

Kanger, L., Sovacool, B.K., Noork˜

oiv, M., 2020. Six policy intervention points for

sustainability transitions: a conceptual framework and a systematic literature

review. Res. Policy 49 (7), 104072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.104072.

Kanger, L., Schot, J., Sovacool, B.K., Van der Vleuten, E., Ghosh, B., Keller, M.,

Kivimaa, P., Parker, A.-K., Steinmueller, W.E., 2021. Research frontiers for multi-

system dynamics and deep transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 41 (52–56).

Katz, M.L., Shapiro, C., 1994. Systems competition and network effects. J. Econ.

Perspect. 8 (2), 93–115.

Kellermann, K., 2019. Accreditation in: Ensuring Quality to Gain Access to Global

Markets: a Reform Toolkit, pp. 93–107. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1372-

6_ch5.

Kemp, R., Schot, J., Hoogma, R., 1998. Regime shifts to sustainability through processes

of niche formation: the approach of strategic niche management. Tech. Anal. Strat.

Manag. 10 (2), 175–198.

Kern, F., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., 2017. Policy packaging or policy patching? The

development of complex energy efficiency policy mixes. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 23,

11–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.11.002.

Kiefer, C.P., Del Río Gonz´

alez, P., Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., 2019. Drivers and barriers of

eco-innovation types for sustainable transitions: a quantitative perspective. Bus.

Strateg. Environ. 28 (1), 155–172.

Kindleberger, C.P., 1983. Standards as public, collective and private goods. Kyklos 36,

377–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6435.1983.tb02705.x.

King, M., Lambert, R., Temple, P., 2017. Measurement standards and productivity

spillovers. In: Hawkins, R., Blind, K., Page, R. (Eds.), Handbook of Innovation and

Standards. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, U.K., pp. 162–186

Kivimaa, P., Kern, F., 2016. Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation

policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 45 (1), 205–217.

Kivimaa, P., Hyysalo, S., Boon, W., Klerkx, Martiskainen, M., Schot, J., 2019. Passing the

baton: how intermediaries advance sustainability transitions in different phases.

Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 31, 110–125.

Kivimaa, P., Laakso, S., Lonkila, A., Kaljonen, M., 2021. Moving beyond disruptive

innovation: a review of disruption in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc.

Trans. 38, 110–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2020.12.001.

Kocha´

nski, M., Korczak, K., Skoczkowski, T., 2020. Technology innovation system

analysis of electricity smart metering in the European Union. Energies 13, 916.

https://doi.org/10.3390/en13040916.

K¨

ohler, J., Geels, F.W., Kern, F., Markard, J., Onsongo, E., Wieczorek, A., Alkemade, F.,

Avelino, F., Bergek, A., Boons, F., Fünfschilling, L., Hess, D., Holtz, G., Hyysalo, S.,

Jenkins, K., Kivimaa, P., Martiskainen, M., McMeekin, A., Mühlemeier, M.S.,

Nykvist, B., Pel, B., Raven, R., Rohracher, H., Sand´

en, B., Schot, J., Sovacool, B.,

Turnheim, B., Welch, D., Wells, P., 2019. An agenda for sustainability transitions

research: State of the art and future directions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 31, 1–32.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2019.01.004.

Konrad, K., Truffer, B., Voß, J.-P., 2008. Multi-regime dynamics in the analysis of sectoral

transformation potential: evidence from German utility sectors. J. Clean. Prod. 16

(11), 1190–1202.

Labarthe, Pierre, Col´

eno, François, Enjalbert, J´

erˆ

ome, Fugeray-Scarbel, Aline,

Hannachi, Mourad, Lemari´

e, St´

ephane, 2021. Exploration, exploitation and

environmental innovation in agriculture. the case of variety mixture in France and

Denmark. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 172, 121028.

Ladu, L., Blind, K., 2017. Overview of policies, standards and certifications supporting

the European bio-based economy. Curr. Opin. Green Sustain. Chem. 8, 30–35.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogsc.2017.09.002.

Li, Y., Zhan, C., de Jong, M., Lukszo, Z., 2016. Business innovation and government

regulation for the promotion of electric vehicle use: lessons from Shenzhen, China.

J. Clean. Prod. 134 (Part A), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

jclepro.2015.10.013.

Lim, S., Prakash, A., 2014. Voluntary regulations and innovation: the case of ISO 14001.

Public Adm. Rev. 74, 233–244. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12189.

Link, A.N., 2021. The economics of metrology: an exploratory study of the impact of

measurement science on U.S. productivity. Econ. Innov. New Technol. https://doi.

org/10.1080/10438599.2021.1895905.

Loconto, A., Busch, L., 2010. Standards, techno-economic networks, and playing fields:

performing the global market economy. Rev. Int. Polit. Econ. 17 (3), 507–536.

Loconto, A., Fouilleux, E., 2014. Politics of private regulation. Regul. Gov. 8, 166–185.

https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.12028.

L¨

ohe, M.G., Blind, K., 2015. Regulation and Standardization of Data Protection in Cloud

Computing, 2015 ITU Kaleidoscope: Trust in the Information Society (K-2015),

pp. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/Kaleidoscope.2015.7383634.

Losacker, S., Liefner, I., 2020. Regional lead markets for environmental innovation.

Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 37, 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

eist.2020.08.003.

Manning, S., Reinecke, J., 2016. A modular governance architecture in-the-making: how

transnational standard-setters govern sustainability transitions. Res. Policy 45 (3),

618–633.

Marian, A., Münch, F.A., Ammel, E., Ferdinand, N., Kumar, S., Ukar, A., L´

opez, M.,

Blind, K., Quitzow, R., 2022. Technical Requirements in Public Auctions to Make

Solar Plants Shine, IASS Policy Brief, January 2022, Potsdam. https://doi.org/

10.48481/iass.2022.004.

Markard, J., 2011. Transformation of infrastructures: sector characteristics and

implications for fundamental change. J. Infrastruct. Syst. 17, 107–117.

Markard, J., 2020. The life cycle of technological innovation systems. Technol. Forecast.

Soc. Chang. 153, 119407 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2018.07.045.

Markard, J., Raven, R., Truffer, B., 2012. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of

research and its prospects. Res. Policy 41 (6), 955–967.

K. Blind

Technological Forecasting & Social Change 199 (2024) 123019

Matschoss, K., Heiskanen, E., 2018. Innovation intermediary challenging the energy

incumbent: enactment of local socio-technical transition pathways by destabilisation

of regime rules. Tech. Anal. Strat. Manag. 30 (12), 1455–1469.

McEntaggart, K., Etienne, J., Beaujet, H., Campbell, L., Blind, K., Ahmad, A., Brass, I.,

2020. Taxonomy of Regulatory Types and Their Impacts on Innovation. https

://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/atta

chment_data/file/861154/taxonomy-regulatory-types-their-impacts-innovation.pdf.

Mi¨

orner, J., Binz, C., 2021. Towards a multi-scalar perspective on transition trajectories.

Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 40, 172–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

eist.2021.06.004.

Mirtsch, M., Blind, K., Koch, C., Dudek, G., 2021. Information security management in

ICT and non-ICT sector companies: a preventive innovation perspective. Comput.

Secur. 109, 102383 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2021.102383.

Morone, P., Caferra, R., D’Adamo, I., Falcone, P.M., Imbert, E., Morone, A., 2021.

Consumer willingness to pay for bio-based products: do certifications matter? Int. J.

Prod. 240, 108248.

Niebel, C., 2021. The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation on innovation

and the global political economy. Comput. Law Secur. Rev. 40, 105523 https://doi.

org/10.1016/j.clsr.2020.105523.

OECD (2021): Recommendation of the Council for Agile Regulatory Governance to

Harness Innovation, OECD/LEGAL/0464.

OECD, 2022. OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy: Germany 2022: Building Agility for

Successful Transitions, OECD Reviews of Innovation Policy. OECD Publishing, Paris.

https://doi.org/10.1787/50b32331-en.

Pavitt, K., 1984. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory.

Res. Policy 13 (6), 343–373. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(84)90018-0.

Penna, C.C.R., Geels, F.W., 2015. Climate change and the slow reorientation of the

American car industry (1979–2012): an application and extension of the Dialectic

issue LifeCycle (DILC) model. Res. Policy 44 (5), 1029–1048. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.respol.2014.11.010.

Pohle, A., Blind, K., Neustroev, D., 2018. The impact of international management

standards on academic research. Sustainability 10, 4656.

Porter, M.E., Van der Linde, C., 1995. Toward a new conception of the environment-

competitiveness relationship. J. Econ. Perspect. 9 (4), 97–118.

Puhl, P., Stuck, J., Sch¨

afer, S., Hillebrand, A., 2021. Vertrauen in Datenverarbeitung.

WIK Kurzstudie Bad Honnef.

Reinecke, J., Manning, S., von Hagen, O., 2012. The emergence of a standards market:

multiplicity of sustainability standards in the global coffee industry. Organ. Stud. 33

(5–6), 791–814. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840612443629.

Rhodes, E., Scott, W.A., Jaccard, M., 2021. Designing flexible regulations to mitigate

climate change: a cross-country comparative policy analysis. Energy Policy 156,

112419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2021.112419.

Rogge, K.S., Reichert, K., 2016. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: an extended

concept and framework for analysis. Res. Policy 45, 1620–1635.

Rosenbloom, D., 2019. A clash of socio-technical systems: exploring actor interactions

around electrification and electricity trade in unfolding low-carbon pathways for

Ontario. Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 49, 219–232.

Sareen, S., Haarstad, H., 2021. Digitalization as a driver of transformative environmental

innovation. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 41, 93–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.

eist.2021.09.016.

Schot, J., Kanger, L., 2018. Deep transitions: emergence, acceleration, stabilization and

directionality. Res. Policy 47 (6), 1045–1059.

Scott, W.R., 1995. Institutions and Organizations. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Shapiro, C., Varian, H.R., 1999. The art of standards wars. Calif. Manag. Rev. 41 (2),

8–32. https://doi.org/10.2307/411 65984.

Siva, V., Hoppe, T., Jain, M., 2017. Green buildings in Singapore; analyzing a

frontrunner’s sectoral innovation system. Sustainability 9 (6), 919. https://doi.org/

10.3390/su9060919.

S¨

oderholm, K., Bergquist, A., S¨

oderholm, P., 2017. The transition to chlorine-free pulp

revisited: Nordic heterogeneity in environmental regulation and R&D collaboration.

J. Clean. Prod. 165, 1328–1339.

Soininen, N., Romppanen, S., Huhta, K., Belinskij, A., 2021. A brake or an accelerator?

The role of law in sustainability transitions. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 41, 71–73.

Swann, G.M.P., 2000. The Economics of Standardization. Department of Trade and

Industry, London.

Swann, G.M.P., 2009. The Economics of Metrology and Measurement; Report for

National Measurement Office, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Swann, G.M.P., 2010. The Economics of Standardization: An Update. www.gov.uk/

government/publications/economics-of-standardisation-update-to-report.

Tang, Y., Hu, X., Petti, C., Thürer, M., 2020. Institution-driven innovation in Guangdong

firms: moderating effects of in-house formal R&D and industrial environment

turbulence. Sci. Public Policy 47 (2), 194–206. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/

scz058. April 2020.

Thumm, N., 2023. Regulation of patents and the impact on innovation. In: Handbook of

Regulation and Innovation. Edward Elgar.

Turnheim, B., Geels, F., 2013. The destabilisation of existing regimes: confronting a

multi-dimensional framework with a case study of the British coal industry

(1913–1967). Res. Policy 42 (10), 1749–1767.

UNIDO, 2018. Quality Infrastructure: UNIDO’s Unique Approach. Retrieved from.

https://www.unido.org/sites/default/files/files/2018-08/UNIDO_QI_CASE_FINAL

_ONLINE_2.pdf.

Van der Vleuten, E., 2019. Radical change and deep transitions: lessons from Europe’s

infrastructure transition 1815-2015. Environ. Innov. Soc. Trans. 32, 22–32.

Vogel, D., 1997. Trading up and governing across: transnational governance and

environmental protection. J. Eur. Public Policy 4, 556–571. https://doi.org/

10.1080/135017697344064.

Volpato, A., 2017. The harmonized standards before the ECJ: James Elliott Construction.

Common Mark. Law Rev. 54, 591–604.

Weber, K.M., 2003. Transforming large socio-technical systems towards sustainability.

On the role of users and future visions for the uptake of city logistics and combined

heat and power generation. Innovation 16, 155–176.

Wiegmann, P.M., De Vries, H.J., Blind, K., 2017. Multi-mode standardisation: a critical

review and a research agenda. Res. Policy 46 (8), 1370–1386. https://doi.org/

10.1016/j.respol.2017.06.002.

Knut Blind studied economics, political science, and psychology at Freiburg University.

During his studies, he spent one year at Brock University (Canada), where he was awarded

a BA. Finally, he earned his Diploma in Economics and later his doctoral degree at Freiburg

University. Between 1996 and 2010, he joined the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and

Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany, as a senior researcher and, at last, as head of the

Competence Center “Regulation and Innovation”. In April 2006, Knut Blind was appointed

Professor of Innovation Economics at the Faculty of Economics and Management at the

Berlin University of Technology. Between 2008 and 2016, he also held the endowed chair

of standardization at the Rotterdam School of Management of Erasmus University. From

April 2010 to September 2019, he was linked to the Fraunhofer Institute of Open

Communication Systems in Berlin. Since October 2019, he has been head of the business

unit “Innovation and Regulation” at the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation

Research. In 2012, he initiated both the Berlin Innovation Panel and the German Stan-

dardization Panel followed by a pilot of a European Standardization Panel launched in

2023. Besides numerous articles on patents, he published several contributions on stan-

dardization and further innovation aspects in refereed journals.

K. Blind