What are environmental innovations?

Romain Debref12

Laboratory REGARDS

University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, France

Abstract:

Twenty years after the Earth Summit in Rio, economics focus on the role of environmental

innovations which aim to provide new perspectives for the sustainable development. The real

challenge is to propose cleared definitions in order to highlight decision makers and

empirical insights. This article discusses the concept of environmental innovation by

emphasizing the fact that it is debatable and unstable concept regarding the multiple

interactions between technologies, the environment and market processes. A definition is not

proposed, this work emphasizes what are environmental innovation according to economics

since the 1990s. This ontological work need an specific approach for emphasizing each

peculiarities. Firstly technical aspects are discussed from static point of view. Then we

choose a dynamic point of view in order to understand the dynamics of environmental

innovation through markets. Finally these dynamics are confronted to the environment. Our

main results emphasize the fact that it is impossible to identify an environmental innovation

ex ante and ex post compared to a standard innovation. The context do have a key role. Then

theoretical contributions deals with how to solve environmental problems without giving a

definition of the "environment". Finally the quest of eco-efficiency is often presented as an

immediate solution for preserving the environment whereas it may deteriorate the

environment in the long term because of rebound effects.

Keywords: environmental innovation, ontology, thermodynamic, rebound effect, eco-

efficiency, ecological economics, clean technologies

Introduction

In the wake of the 1990s the concept of sustainable development and international summits

inspire politics, industries and economics for preserving the environment and our future

generations. The technical progress received a peculiar attention because of ecological

disasters and scarcity of assets such as peak oil (Cole et al. 1974). Technologies and

“artifacts” have an exosomatic dimension and accompany the development of humankind

1 Corresponding author at: Laboratory REGARDS (EA 6292), U.F.R. Sciences économiques sociales et de

gestion, 57 bis, rue Pierre Taittinger, 51096 REIMS Cedex

E-mail address: romain.debref@univ-reims.fr

2 Please do not quote or cite without author’s permission

while being a source of conflicts (Georgescu-Roegen 1975, Gowdy 1994). Dissensions are

partly due to economic incitation which increase steadily the gaps between the welfare

provided innovations, resources and the biosphere. The economic literature provide various

definitions of the concept of environmental innovation in order to avoid the mistake of the

past (Kemp and Soete 1990; Georg et al. 1992; Green et al. 1994; Overcash 1996; Fussler and

James 1997; Kemp and Arundel 1998; Hemmelskamp 1997; Rennings 2000; Markusson and

Olofsdotter, Brunnermeier and Cohen 2003; van den Bergh et al. 2011; Horbach et al. 2012).

For this a normative point of view is required in order to be on the same wavelength with the

environment. It helps also empirical insights for describing some facts of our reality

(Faucheux and Nicolaï 2011). Twelve years after Rennings’ proposals (Rennings 2000), a

state-of-the-art of environmental innovations seems to be cleared and stabilized. Yet the

literature do not really discusses this concept as if these innovations would be a deus ex

machina for the salvation of the sustainable development.

Paradoxically various authors which have been at the origin of this field are questioning the

existence of these environmental innovations. For instance, René Kemp argues that

sustainable technologies do not exist in situ because of systemic effects (Kemp, 2010, p.2).

Other works dealing with the green chemistry confirm this thesis (Debref, 2012). That is why

this article aims to show from a peculiar approach that “environmental innovation” is a

controversial concept which is always in the quest of clarity. In fact I argue that nobody can

know ex ante and ex post if an innovation will be called “environmental” or not because it

depends on the context and institutional influences.

A peculiar methodology is proposed in order to analyze the concept of environmental

innovation. Firstly a static approach will identify its technical peculiarities while comparing

them to « standards innovations » in order to get a better understanding of the role of

categorizations, of end-of-pipe/clean technologies and of applications in terms of circular

economy. This items proposed ex ante will be criticized one by one (1). Secondly the dynamic

of these innovations trough the market will be analyzed in terms of degree of change and

technological trajectories (2). Thirdly theses dynamics will be link with the environment in

order to know if the phrase “environmental” can be directly joint to the innovation as it is

suggested de facto by literature. For this the role of the eco-efficiency, of the entropy and their

consequences in terms of rebound effects will be discussed (3).

1. The emergence of environmental innovation and its technical aspects

The literature suggests ex ante various devices to implement the concept of environmental

innovations. I discuss it from four points. Firstly the definitions and the normativity of this

concept will be questioned. Secondly I analyze how these innovations are categorized

regarding standard innovations. Thirdly the relevance of technical aspects provided by

definitions such as end-of-pipe technologies and clean technologies will be study. Finally

combinations of these technical solutions are complex in following the paradigm of circular

economy and of ecosystems.

1.1 From a common purpose...

Since the 1980s various definitions of innovations has been proposed to preserve the

environment (Hartje and Laurie 1984; Georg et al. 1992; Kemp and L. Soete 1992; Fussler

and James 1997; Hemmelskamp 1997; Ayres and Weaver 1998; Cleff and Rennings 1999;

Frondel et al. 2007; Rennings 2000; Nuij 2001; Markusson and Olofsdotter 2001; Huber

2008; Frondel et al. 2007; Oltra et al. 2009; OECD 2010; Carrillo-Hermosilla et al. 2010;

Faucheux and Nicolaï 2011; Demirel and Kesidou 2011; van den Bergh et al. 2011).

Sometime called eco-innovations, green innovations, sustainable innovations or

environmental innovations in literature, their designations are multiple even if they aim to

preserve the environment. For achieving this goal, economics propose various necessary

assumption by calling for a normative point of view in order to solve environmental issues.

The normativity of environmental innovation is opposed to standard innovations and

Schumpeter’s positivism (1939) who defines them as : “doing things differently in the realm

of economic life [...]”. In other words, the fate of standard innovations cannot be predicated ex

ante and exist only thanks to the market. Paradoxically environmental innovations are

voluntarily determined by items that means that we are able to identify them and to know

what technical aspect should be acceptable for the future.

The OECD report of 2010 and the European Union report of 2008 called “Measuring Eco-

Innovation” (MEI) define environmental innovations as follows: “Eco-innovation is the

production, assimilation or exploitation of a product, production process, service or

management or business method that is novel to the organisation (developing or adopting it)

and which results, throughout its life cycle, in a reduction of environmental risk, pollution

and other negative impacts of resources use (including energy use) compared to relevant

alternatives” (Kemp and Pearson, 2008). Secondly, Hemmelskamp argues that

“environmental innovations serve to: avoid or reduce emissions caused by the production, use

or consumption and disposal of goods, reduce resource input, environmental cleanup damage

done in the past, identify and control pollution” (Hemmelskamp, 1997). Then, Kemp and

Arundel (1998) point out that they are “new or changed procedures, techniques, systems or

products to reduce or avoid environmental damage.” Meanwhile, Markusson and Olofsdotter

thinks that “environmental innovations can be defined in two ways: first, the effects of

innovation on the environment and, secondly, by the intentions of the innovator to reduce the

environmental impact of processes and products” (Markusson and Olofsdotter, 2001).

Finally, according to Rennings, they are an “Eco-innovations are all measures of relevant

actors (firms, politicians, unions, associations, churches, private households) which develop

new ideas, behavior, products and processes, apply or introduce them and which contribute

to a reduction of environmental burdens or to ecologically specified sustainability targets.”

(Rennings, 2000). These propositions reveal there is not one definition of environmental

innovation, but some details are recurrent. Firstly an environmental innovation need the

market to exist and is based on categorization as a service, a process, an organization, a new

outlet and new raw material. Then technical solutions are proposed for preserving the

environment such as additive and preventive methods which are helped by life cycle

assessments. Finally the goals is to reduce or to avoid environmental impacts.

1.2... to confusions in categorization

The devil is in the details. It means that the more we get details the more we get confusions.

When we look at categorizations of environmental innovation, the latter can be classified such

as goods, services, technologies, processes or organizational systems (Malaman 1996;

Hemmelskamp 1997; James 1997; René Kemp and Arundel 1998; Jones et al. 2001;

Markusson and Olofsdotter 2001; Oltra 2008). These categorizations are based exactly on the

same principle of standard innovations since standard innovations are also inspired by

Schumpeter’s proposals (1934). This author proposes five forms to identify them: the

production of a new good, new production methods, new work-organizations, new outlets and

raw materials. It means that their difference are not so opposed and we can confirmed it by

giving various examples dealing with the preservation of the environment.

Firstly, on the one hand, any products called “green products” are considered better for the

environment, such as hybrid engines, while opening the way to new outlets (Porter and van

der Linde 1995; Kemp, 2010). On the other hand, hazardous products can also be considered

an innovation of product by increasing the growth and the development of emergent

countries. Secondly green processes proposed by the twelve principles of green chemistry are

presented as solutions to achieve a sustainable sociotechnical regime. But, some “green

methods” such as catalyses can be more dangerous for the environment than before (Nieddu

and Garnier, 2010). Thirdly environmental management system and industrial symbioses can

be considered such as an environmental innovation in terms of organization. (Commoner

1971; Allenby and Cooper 1994; Patingre and Vigneron 2001, Erkman 2004). Admittedly, the

difference between these concepts are different but sometimes not very closed to the

management of quality. So where are the borders of what is environmental or not? Finally the

substitution of raw materials for renewable energies is a crucial case (Giampietro and Mayumi

2009). Yet this interest in substitution occurred already in the 19th century when the coal has

been replaced by the oil era. Thus differences between standard innovations and

environmental innovations are unclear from theory and examples. Consequently more

technical details are required for better distinctions.

1.3 End-of-pipe and clean technologies, from duality until synergy

Nowadays empirical studies about environmental innovations contribute to an interesting

literature (Demirel and Kesidou,2011; Faucheux and Nicolaï, 2011). The literature points out

two technical questions for preserving the environment. Shall we modify technologies by

improving the reducing and the reusing of matters and energy (Hohmeyer and Koschel 1995;

Overcash 1996; Rennings 2000). Or, shall we propose new inspiration in order to avoid

directly pollutions? The first technical solution deals with additive technologies which are

commonly called end-of-pipe technologies and aim to "curb pollution emissions by

implementing add-on measures" on processes of production (Frondel et al. 2007). These

technologies reduce pollutions from an upstream point of view such as filters, valves or low-

energy lamps. The latter decrease emissions and consumptions in order to reach a "zero

pollution" level. The increase of the productivity and the harshness of environmental

regulation force decision-makers to invest in more expensive technologies. It means the more

pollution is decreased, the more costs rise in the long term meanwhile the source of the

pollution and ultimate wastes are not eradicated. Finally, regarding these issues, we argue that

firms can move partly or completely their fragile technologies in others countries and

disseminated pollutions in one other part of the world.

The second question deals with preventive actions represented by integrated technologies

called cleaner production which aim "[...] reduces resource use and/or pollution at the source

by using cleaner products and production methods" (Frondel et al, 2007). New methods are

required in order to modify and avoiding the lacks of end-of-pipe technologies. As said

Frondel et al. (2007, p.6), "cleaner products and production technologies are frequently seen

as being superior to end-of-pipe technologies for both environmental and economic reasons".

In fact we argue that this case is not so easy to implement since this scenario requires new

methods, news inspirations while being viable for firms. It means that decision makers will be

directly confronted to economic risks in the short terms without having the certainties of a

success story.

According to the literature, rivalries between end-of-pipe technologies and clean technologies

were clearly presented during the 1980s (Hartje and Laurie 1984; Hartje and Laurie 1985). At

the beginning, cleaner technologies have been considered such as the best opportunity for

avoiding pollutions and for developing new behaviors and skills (Kemp and Soete 1992).

Then, since the 1990s and the 2000s, the radicality has become hazier. Klaus Rennings who

quote Hohmeyer and Koschel (1995) shows well that these two kinds of environmental

technologies can provide synergies together (see below). Firstly integrated technologies are

still based on a preventive approach in terms of the modularity of inputs, process of

productions and outputs. Secondly additive technologies, which has been initially questioned,

do not need modularity since its goal is to transfer pollutions a circular system while feeding

other processes of production. Finally we cannot determined ex ante the most adapted

technical solution since their do have major lacks and can be sometimes combined thanks to a

circular economy model.

Figure 1 : Environmental technologies (Hohmeyer and Koschel 1995; Rennings 2000)

1.4 The confusion between circular economy and collective applications of ecosystems

Basically collecting pollutions and wastes disseminated all over the world is considered as a

problem for firms. Yet, when they can be integrated in various kind of process on production,

I argue that it could be an opportunity in terms of rents. Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill

learn us that the value joint production do not exist without a market and prices (Baumgärtner

et al., 2001). So these proposals confirm that the quest of economical and environmental

opportunities need a combination of a multiple categorizations and technical aspects. In

addition to the lack of identification ex ante, it means that environmental innovation is into

complex clusters. For instance, imitating ecosystems can provided a better understanding and

controls of exchanges of matters and energy (Commoner 1971; Frosch and Gallopoulos 1989;

Allenby and Cooper 1994; Commoner 1997). Three kinds of ecosystem exist (Allenby and

Cooper 1994) (Figure 2). Firstly type I ecosystem is completely opened with unlimited assets.

Secondly type II eco-system is partly closed by controlling energies and assets. Thirdly type

III ecosystem is completely closed and controls completely the faith of inputs and outputs in

terms of energy. According to the literature, this type III ecosystem is the main goal for

preserving the environment. Yet, as said Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, a complex close-loop

system is impossible because of the entropy (Georgescu-Roegen, 1975).

Figure 2 : Relationship between energy/matters and ecosystems (Allenby and Cooper, 1994)

Controlling the end-of-life of products is an opportunity to transform them into new assets.

Achieving a type III ecosystem is considered as an interesting choice. According to some

authors developing a cradle to cradle approach allow us to control integrally the life cycle of

products (Braungart and McDonough 2002). Paradoxically an type III ecosystem from a

product of view do not need borders and founds for working (Georgescu-Roegen 1984; Daly

1995). Wastes will be sold all over the world and will be controlled by eco-design methods

and life cycle analysis with smarter logistic means. This point of view has been developed for

standard innovations by economic groups either to reduce commodity prices and to lighten

competitive pressures in the 1970s (Tan et al. 2002). During this period the environmental

issue was not the priority. Yet nowadays this point of view is the dominant design (Abrassart

and Aggeri 2002; Fullana i Palmer et al. 2011). Finally if a smarter logistic is available

without taking into account flows instead of the peculiarities of spaces, transfers of flows

because of users' behavior and consumerism is allowed. Yet it could reinforce the acceleration

the laws of entropy and the irreversibility of matter (Georgescu-Roegen, 1975;1984). Thus the

application of eco-system from a product point of view is debatable ex ante.

Regarding to local applications, firms share their flow of energy and matters together thanks

to the combination of technologies. In fact, it is marshallian district in which the collaboration

of actors provide economical advantages while decreasing the waste of resources (Marshall,

1890). The peculiarities of this point of view is that these firms develop together

organizational innovations which is closed to the concept of industrial symbioses in

developing type III ecosystem (Erkman, 2004). Indeed closed-loop systems are often called

"industrial symbioses" and are presented as a solution for the sustainability (Frosch and

Gallopoulos, 1989). Yet this point of view is difficult to implements due to evaluation costs

and resiliencies of local actors. For instance how to stock the energy provided by steam? Or

how to avoid energy loses if plants cannot use it because of their critical sizes? As say Nicolas

Buclet, this kind of alternative -Type III ecosystem- is an “utopia” (Buclet, 2011). Moreover,

we argue that this technical solution is not a novelty and depends on the context. Before

Frosch and Gallopoulos (1989) in the early 1990s, Henry Ford applied the concept of

industrial symbioses at River Rouge in the 1920s in order to improve the productivity of

production (McCarthy 2006). It will be exactly the same case in the USSR called them

“kombinirovanaia produksia - combined productions - in the 1950s (Sathre and Grdzelishvili

2006). The quest of productivity was a disaster in USSR because of the lacks of planning of

production. Finally we note that the concept of circular economy in environmental innovation

is limited regarding historical facts, novelty and contexts.

In a nutshell technical peculiarities of environmental innovations do not allow us to make a

relevant distinction with a standard innovation ex ante. Every details are debatable and

depend on the context and the behavior of decision makers and users.

2.Environmental innovation, a singular dynamic?

Since a static point of view cannot help us to make a distinction between environmental

innovations and standard innovations, I choose a dynamic approach in order to evaluate the

role of the market. Firstly I will point out the degrees of changes and uses (2.1). Secondly I

will compare the concept of technological trajectories between standard and environmental

innovations (2.2).

2.1 Degrees of change and uses

The contributions of evolutionary economics show us that innovations can be identified by

three degrees of change. Changes can be incremental, radical or systemic (Oltra and Saint

Jean 2005; Freeman and Soete 1990). The first one deals with a low degree of change

consisting in adding options to an existing technology. We note that it does not basically

change fundamentally the behavior and the current productions (Nuij 2001; Brunnermeier and

Cohen 2003). The second one modifies the evolution of production processes, of uses and of

organizations (Freeman and Soete 1990; Cleff and Klauss 2000). The last one is a systemic

innovation where both radical and incremental innovations are combined such as a cluster:

their results are complex and stochastic, that is why we cannot determine ex ante (Falk and

Ryan 2006; Jones, Stanton, et al. 2001). This degree of evolution goes beyond organization

boundaries and affects directly economic issues, institutions, technologies, territorialities and

our perception of environment.

This degree of changes observed are different between environmental innovations and

standards innovations because changing behavior is often considered by the literature as a

solution for preserving natural assets (Oltra and Saint Jean 2009; Ehrlich and Holdren 1971).

Even if some authors argue that radical innovations are the best solution to preserve the

environment, I argue that it is more complex that it could appear. Indeed environmental

innovations have to integrate both environmental and economic challenges. They are driven in

order to embed both long-term and short-term dimension. Firstly the long-term dimension

focuses on the functionality of innovation which is identified in term of meanings and

purposes. In this case, decision makers need others functionalities and new goals in order to

avoid environmental impacts in the long term. Secondly these goals can be achieve only if

decisions makers get relevant compounds and know exactly what will be the consequences of

its actions (how / what) (Koestler 1967; Polimeni et al. 2008). This case is a classical problem

for the engineers who need to resolve immediately with current solution in spite of

uncertainties (Hatchuel et al. 2006). Besides, these two dimensions are both drawn into

conflict and complementary, because decision makers cannot simultaneously think about

means, functions and future results in a complex situation. It means that a radical solution

calling for integrated technologies can be worst than an incremental solution with end-of-pipe

technologies because these innovations can provide an immediate action and viability thanks

to market. This paradox is a real “tragedy of change” and it cannot help us to identify what are

environmental innovation in terms of dynamics (Funtowicz and Ravetz 1990) (See the table

below).

From ex ante

to Processes of

evolution

End-of-pipe

technologies /

Incremental

environmental

innovations

Identification of

environmental

innovations by

literature

Integrated

technologies / radical

environmental

innovations

Advantages Flexibility and

adaptability based on

the current process of

production.

Eradication of

pollution, new ideas

and new kind of

solution

Drawbacks Environmental

dumping, the move of

pollution, ultimate

waste.

Economical risks and

uncertainties

Table 1 : Environmental innovations and degrees of changes

2.2 What technological trajectories for environmental innovations?

The concept of technological trajectories is useful for understanding the determinant of

standard innovation. The economic literature show us that its evolution depend on a triad :

"demand pull", "technology push" and "science-push". This matrix opens endless possibilities

(Dosi 1982; Dosi 1988) which are slowed down by various institutional fetters: path

dependency, representations, social acceptability and network externalities (David 1985;

Kline and Rosenberg 1986; Malerba 2002). As much as the degree of change, technological

trajectories of standard innovations is unexpected ex ante.

Where

and how

to

change ?

Figure 3 : the determinant of environmental innovations (Rennings, 2000, p.8)

Paradoxically, technological trajectories of environmental innovations are also based on

Dosi's proposals. However, regarding Rennings' work, various specific details into pathways

trajectory (Rennings, 2000, p.8; Horbach et al., 2012). More precisely they are recognizable

by the quest of efficiency through optimization of the use of raw materials and of energy

consumptions. Moreover, they are driven by environmental policy with taxes, standards or

regulation (See figure 3). Contrary to a standard innovation which depends on the market,

environmental innovation depends on the regulation. So by adding details in technologies and

regulation it means that decision makers and policy makers while know exactly what could be

better for preserving the environment. For this, it will mean that definitions and details are

clearly stabilized ex ante. Paradoxically it is not the case as we have show above.

Finally environmental innovations are confronted to complex phenomena which question

their own existence. The role of regulation and the “tragedy of change” depend on the context.

Environmental impacts could be solved by quest of efficiency but depends on the dynamics of

user's behaviors and technological trajectories. Standard and environmental innovations are

not opposed. They difference is due to how institutions and contexts are driving their

evolutions. That is why we need to emphasize the relationships between the evolution of these

innovations and the environment.

3. ENVIRONMENTAL INNOVATIONS AND ITS (IN) APPROPRIATENESS TO

ENVIRONMENTAL DYNAMICS

This last part deals with the relationship between standard and environmental innovations

with the environment in order to show that the literature cannot identify ex post what are

environmental innovations. For this, I will show that the quest of the efficiency of assets is

presented as a relevant solution for reducing the impacts of innovation on the environment. I

will focus on its principles in order to identify the difference between standard and

environmental innovations (3.1). Paradoxically I will show that solving environmental issues

thanks to the quest of eco-efficiency generates six rebound effects and can contribute to the

increase of environmental impacts.

3.1 Eco-efficiency, a singular interpretation for preserving the environment?

The term "environment" is complex to be defined and can be declined in many ways. A

technocentric approach proposes to solve environmental impacts by using life cycle

assessments and ecosystem models as we have seen above (Odum 1969; Theys 1993; Erkman

1998; Grisel and Osset 2004, Vivien, 2007). This point of view considers the environment

such as materials and energy flows which have to be optimized in order to provide more

welfare with less resources. This concept is call the eco-efficiency and is popular in literature

(Bleischwitz, 2003; Huppes and Ishikawa, 2005; Polimeni et al. 2008). This popularity is due

to two advantages. Eco-efficiency provides higher economic rents by reducing costs of

production meanwhile a lower consumption level of natural resources decrease (Blake 2005;

Polimeni et al. 2008). Consequently, if environmental innovations aim to conciliate the nature

with market, then eco-efficiency included in environmental innovations is required for

achieving sustainability (Huppes and Ishikawa, 2005).

Paradoxically this quest of eco-efficiency is not specific to environmental innovation. It was

proposed on the wake of capitalism. According to Ricardo (1817), two dimensions of

efficiency about resources must be taken into account. The first one deals with the capacity to

increase of the productivity and the performance of technologies in terms of optimization in

agriculture which increase marginal returns of scale of fields (E1a). The second kind of eco-

efficiency deals with the quality of fields which is exploited. These fields optimize also their

own regenerative capacity (E2a). In other words, two kind of eco-efficiency exist : technical

vs natural. When the first one is able to transform more and more, the dynamic of the second

will be different. Then beyond a simple ratio of input and output, we argue that analyzing the

peculiarities of eco-efficiency is as much as more relevant with the principles of

thermodynamics (Mayumi and Gowdy 1999). Thanks to Kawamiya's works (1983), natural

and technical aspects of eco-efficiency have also dynamic perspectives. The author proposes

two types. Firstly the type 1 eco-efficiency is static and I include in it (E1a) et (E2a).

Secondly the type 2 eco-efficiency gives them dynamics that I call (E1b) and (E2b). In this

case, technologies are based on a limitless eco-efficiency because the more is it optimized the

more it is better for environment and the "enjoyment(s) of life" of human kind (Georgescu-

Roegen, 1979). Yet the dynamic of renewability of the environment in the long term is limited

because of entropy (E2b). Since environmental innovation aims to solve environmental

innovation as deus ex machina, it could mean that despite these four dimensions of eco-

efficiency, the efficiencies (E1a & b) of environmental innovation are the priority instead of

environment itself (Polimeni et al. 2008) (See table 4).

Environmental innovations Environment

Efficiency in optimization (Short

term) Efficiency of technologies

Efficiency of resources (i.e

quality of fields)

Efficiency in the dynamic of

optimization (Long term)

Unlimited renewability (Market,

“enjoyment of life” Limited renewability

Table 2 : the four dimensions of (eco)efficiency (From Polimeni et al. 2008)

3.2 The rebound effects, the paradox of environmental innovation

Actually, analyzing the relationship between innovations and the environment is an

appropriate point of view for appreciating the potentialities of eco-efficiency of environmental

innovations. At the first sight it seems to provide more productivity of natural assets and more

rents while generating less impacts on the environment. Yet, as a founding father of

neoclassical economics, Jevons argued that they make paradoxical effects on the environment

because an economical race directly contributes to increase resource depletion in the long

term. His book The Coal Question has been largely taken over by the ecological economics

field in order to analyze this rebound effect (Jevons 1865; Khazoom, 1980, Polimeni et al.

2008). Nowadays six effects are identified by the literature.

Polimeni et al., 2008 propose an interesting point of view about these rebounds effects (See

the table 2). They identify direct and indirect effects that confirm environmental innovations

cannot be identified ex post. Firstly, since economic agents have limited budgets, they are

encouraged to buy more thanks to savings (1). Secondly lower costs leave the way for

technological access to some population who did not have this access before (2). Here number

of population have a key role. Thirdly the quest of eco-efficiency and of opportunities of rents

can lead organizations to accelerate scarcity because of competitions between branches and

sector (3). Concerning indirect effects. Fourthly machines can perfectly substitute the human

labor with the same amount of time and of inputs. That is to say that workers are able to work

or to consume more than before (4). Fifthly an inelastic price demand cannot influence the

behavior of the consumer (5). Sixthly if prices of the commodity decrease, we cannot reveal

scarcity of energy and assets in comparing economical values (6). It means that the

discovering of new oil deposit will decrease prices and delay an irreversible bottleneck.

Finally we cannot identify environmental innovations ex post because of the complexity of the

context.

Impacts Principles E

x p

ost

& C

om

ple

xit

y

Direct Technologies are more efficient, but increase uses (1)

Population needs and income (2)

The dynamics of sectors and branches (3)

Indirect Substitution of human labor with machines for more productivity and

consumptions (4)

Elasticity of demand equal to 0 (5)

Fall of commodity prices falls (6)

Table 3 the complexity of six rebound effects and its limits in terms of eco-efficiency (from

Polimeni et al., 2008)

Summary and conclusion

This article discussed on the concept of environmental innovation which has been proposed

by economics in the wake of the 1990s. I go deeper in René Kemp’s thesis since we analyze

directly the concept of environmental innovation instead of “sustainable technologies”. For

this a peculiar method has been selected - static, dynamics and relationships between

dynamics- in order to point out if these innovations can be identified ex ante and ex post.

Three results has been emphasized. First of all it was impossible to recognize what are an

environmental innovation with ex ante and ex post positions. It is a complex object and it

depends on the context : similar case can be controversial or acceptable in terms of

environmental preservation and sustainability. Secondly, literature call for a normative point

of view rather than giving a definition of “environment”. The normativity aim to help decision

makers for respecting various details such as the quest of eco-efficiency. At the first sight this

quest is interesting for preserving the environment but there are four kinds of eco-efficiency

that the literature do not point out it. Finally, the rebound effect emphasize the fact that

reducing impacts with eco-efficiency may occur bigger impacts in the long term. Finally, the

concept of environmental innovation cannot solve by itself environmental concerns. The most

important part of future works is to feed economics and social science with empirical insights

in order to getting a better understanding of the role of institution, coordination of actor and

the emergence of common beliefs.

Acknowledgments

I want to thank Franck-Dominique Vivien, Cyril Hédoin, Martino Nieddu and Fabien Tarrit

for their thoughtful and stimulating feedback on previous versions of the paper. Financial help

from the ANR project : “An Economical Approach of Integration of socio-economical, and

technological dimensions into Research’s Programs in Doubly Green Chemistry” - ANR-09-

CP2D-01-01 .

Appendix 1 : debates about definitions of environmental innovation

Goals and means of Environmental innovations (Static) Evolutions of environmental innovations

(Dynamic)

Innovations (Shumpeter, 1934) Environment

Categorization Methodology and means Degree of changes

Authors Products/Services

(1)

Organization

(1)

Process

(1)

New

outlets (1)

New

assets (1) Additive (2)

Preventive

(3)

Life cycle analysis

/Ecosystems (4)

Eco-

efficiency (5) Radical (6) Incremental (7)

Systemic

(8)

Hartje & Laurie (1984) X X X X X X X X

Georg et al.(1992) X X X X X X X

Fussler and James (1997) X X

Hemmelskamp (1997) X X X X X

Kemp and Arundel

(1998) X X X X X X

Ayres and Weaver

(1998) X X X X X X X

Rennings (2000) X X X

Nuij (2001) X X X

Markusson (2001) X X

Oltra and Saint-Jean

(2007) X X X X X

Huber (2008) X X X

Kemp and Pearson

(2008) X X X X X X

OECD (2010) X X X X X

Van den Bergh et al.

(2011) X X X X

16

Standard innovations Environmental innovations

Step 1: The Emergence of

environmental innovation

and of its technical aspects

What technical solutions?

Tec

hn

ica

l asp

ects

Categorizations

New goods (1)

New production methods (1)

New work organizations (1)

New outlets (1)

New raw materials (1)

Technical peculiarities

Any types of technology

that exist thanks to

markets

Oriented approaches with "end-if-pipe"

and "integrated technologies"

Ecosystemic approach Marshalian districts

Type I, Type II and Type III ecosystem

(4)

Division of work Intensification, complexification of processes

Substitution of materials Substitution of materials Substitution of hazardous materials

Main goals

Increasing economical

welfare

Reducing environmental impacts while

increasing economical welfare

Result 1

Old innovations, unoriginality, logistic made for the

acceleration of the transformation of matters and energy,

debatable for preserving the environment

Step 2 : a singular evolution How to use and to drive the evolution of environmental

innovations?

Use

r's

beh

avio

r Incremental Yes (6)

Radical Yes (7)

Systemic Yes - clusters (8)

Users Population/consumers/users

Results « Tragedy of change »

Incremental innovation could be better than radical innovations

Dy

na

mic

tra

jecto

ries

"Demand pull" Yes

Yes and better products for the

environment

"Technology push" Yes Drive for the future

"Science-push" Yes Drive for the future

"Regulatory pull" Yes Drive for the future by regulation

Result 2 : evaluation of

impact for the long term ex post

ex ante (anticipative, interpretation of

the best scenario for the Future)

Third step : bioconomics and

the gap of environmental

innovations

The relationship between standard / environmental innovations

and the biosphere regarding their design (step 1) and their

evolution (step 2

Eff

icie

ncy

Solving environmental

issues Technocentric approach

Point of view Flows and ecosystems of the process of innovations (4)

Goals Resolving economical Resolving economical and

Appendix 2 : What are environmental innovations ?

17

issues thanks to

efficiency (5)

environmental issues thanks to the

quest of eco-efficiency (5)

Static efficiency (E1a) of innovations vs environment (E2a)

Dynamic efficiency (E1b) of innovations vs environment (E2b)

Directs effects

Technologies are more efficient, but increase uses because of users

Population needs and income

The dynamics of sectors and branches

Indirect effects

Substitution of human labor with machines for more productivity

and consumptions

Elasticity of demand equal to 0

Fall of commodity prices falls

Glo

ba

l

imp

act

s

Result 4 : possible

ecological impacts + ++

Conclusion Impossible, systemic and complex to identify

18

References

Abrassart, C. and Aggeri, F., 2002. La naissance de l’éco-conception : du cycle de vie du

produit au management environnemental « produit ». Annale des Mines, p.21.

Allenby, B. and Cooper, W.., 1994. Understanding industrial ecology from a biological

systems perspective. Environmental Quality Management, 3(3).

Ayres, R.U. and Weaver, P.M., 1998. Eco-restructuring: implications for sustainable

development, United Nations University Press.

Baumgärtner, S. et al., 2001. The concept of joint production and ecological economics.

Ecological Economics, 36(3), p.365-372.

Blake, A., 2005. Jevons’ Paradox. Ecological Economics, 54(1), p.9-21.

Blake, A. et al., 2008. The Jevons paradox and the myth of resource efficiency improvements,

Earthscan.

Bleischwitz, R., 2003. Cognitive and institutional perspectives of eco-efficiency. Ecological

Economics, 46(3), p.453-467.

Braungart, M. and McDonough, W., 2002. Cradle to Cradle: Remaking the Way We Make

Things 1er

éd., North Point Press.

Brunnermeier, S.B. and Cohen, M.A., 2003. Determinants of environmental innovation in US

manufacturing industries. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management,

45(2), p.278-293.

Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., del Río, P. and Könnölä, T., 2010. Diversity of eco-innovations:

Reflections from selected case studies. Journal of Cleaner Production, 18(10-11),

p.1073-1083.

Cleff, T. and Rennings, K., 1999. Determinants of environmental product and process

innovation. European Environment, 9(5), p.191-201.

Cole, H, Freeman, C., Johoda, M., Pavitt, K., 1974. L’anti-Malthus - Une critique de « Halte à

la croissance ». Seuil. Paris.

Commoner, B., 1971. The Closing Circle: Nature, Man, and Technology, Random House Inc

(T).

Commoner, B., 1997. The relation between industrial and ecological systems. Journal of

Cleaner Production, 5(1-2), p.125-129.

19

Daly, H., 1995. On Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s contributions to economics: an obituary

essay. Ecological Economics, 13(3), p.149-154.

David, P.A., 1985. Clio and the Economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review, 75(2),

p.332-37.

Debref, R., 2012. The paradox of environmental innovations : the case of green chemistry.

Journal of Innovation Economics, (9), p.85–104

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

Government policies and firm motivations. Ecological Economics, 70(8), p.1546-

1557.

Dosi, G., 1988. Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of

Economic Literature, 26(3), p.1120-71.

Dosi, G., 1982. Technological paradigms and technological trajectories:A suggested

interpretation of the determinants and directions of technical change. Research Policy,

11, p.147-162.

Ehrlich, P.R. and Holdren, J.P., 1971. Impact of Population Growth. Science, 171(3977),

p.1212 -1217.

Erkman, S., 1998. Vers une écologie industrielle, Charles Léopold Mayer.

Faucheux, S. and Nicolaï, I., 2011. IT for green and green IT: A proposed typology of eco-

innovation. Ecological Economics, 4

Freeman, C. and Soete, L., 1990. New explorations in the economics of technical change,

Pinter Publishers.

Frondel, M., Horbach, J. and Rennings, K., 2007. End-of-pipe or cleaner production? An

empirical comparison of environmental innovation decisions across OECD countries.

Business Strategy and the Environment, 16(8), p.571-584.

Frosch, R. and Gallopoulos, N., 1989. Strategies for manufacturing in managing planet Earth.

Scientific American, ((3) 152).

Fullana i Palmer, P. et al., 2011. From Life Cycle Assessment to Life Cycle Management.

Journal of Industrial Ecology.

Funtowicz, S.. and Ravetz, J.., 1990. Uncertainty and Quality in Science. Kluwer Academic

Publishers.

Fussler, C. and James, P., 1997. Driving Eco-Innovation: A Breakthrough Discipline for

Innovation and Sustainability, Financial Times/Prentice Hall.

20

Georg, S., Røpke, I. and Jørgensen, U., 1992. Clean technology — Innovation and

environmental regulation. Environmental and Resource Economics, 2(6), p.553-550.

Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1975. Energy and economic myths. The Southern Economic Journal

41 (3), 347–381.

Georgescu-Roegen, N., 1984. Feasible recipes and viable technologies. Atlantic Economics

Journal, 12, p.21-30.

Giampietro, M. and Mayumi, K., 2009. The Biofuel Delusion: The Fallacy of Large Scale

Agro-biofuels Production, Earthscan Ltd.

Gowdy, J.M., 1994. Coevolutionary economics: the economy, society, and the environment,

Springer.

Green, K., McMeekin, A. and Irwin, A., 1994. Technological trajectories and RandD for

environmental innovation in UK firms. Futures, 26(10), p.1047-1059.

Grisel, L. and Osset, P., 2004. L’Analyse du Cycle de Vie d’un produit ou d’un service :

Applications et mise en pratique, AFNOR.

Hartje, V. and Laurie, L., 1984. Adoption rules for pollution control innovations : End-of-pipe

versus integrated technologies. International Institute for Environment and Society.

Hartje, V. and Laurie, L., 1985. Research and Development incentives for pollution control

technologies. International Institute for Environment and Society.

Hatchuel, A., Le Masson, P. and Weil, B., 2006. Les processus d’innovation : Conception

innovante et croissance des entreprises, Hermes Science Publications.

Hemmelskamp, J., 1997. Environmental policy instruments and their effects on innovation.

European Planning Studies, 5(2), p.177.

Horbach, J., Rammer, C. and Rennings, K. (2012), Determinants of eco-innovations by type

of environmental impact — The role of regulatory push/pull, technology push and

market pull. Ecological Economics, 78 p.112-122

Hohmeyer, O. and Koschel, H., 1995. Umweltpolitische Instrumente zur Förderung des

Einsatzes integrierter Umwelttechnik, Mannheim: Deutschen Bundestag.

Huber, J., 2008. Pioneer countries and the global diffusion of environmental innovations:

Theses from the viewpoint of ecological modernisation theory. Global Environmental

Change, 18(3), p.360-367.

Huppes, G., Ishikawa, M., 2005. «Why Eco-efficiency? », Journal of Industrial Ecology,

vol.9, n°4, pp.2–5.

21

James, P., 1997. The Sustainability Circle: a new tool for product development and design.

Journal of Sustainable Product Design, 2.

Jevons, W.S., 1865. The Coal Question An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the

Nation,and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-Mines, Londre: Macmillan and Co.

Jones, E., Stanton, N.A. and Harrison, D., 2001. Applying structured methods to Eco-

innovation. An evaluation of the Product Ideas Tree diagram. Design Studies, 22(6),

p.519-542.

Kawamiya, N., 1983. Entropii to Kougyoushakai no Sentaku (Entropy and Future Choices for

the Industrial Society), Tokyo: Kaimei

Kemp, R., 2010. Sustainable technologies do not exist! Ekonomiaz, 75.

Kemp, R. and Arundel, A., 1998. Survey Indicators for Environmental Innovation. IDEA

(Indicators and. Data for European Analysis).

Kemp, R. and Pearson, P., 2008. Final report MEI project about measuring eco-innovation,

Available at: http://www.merit.unu.edu/MEI/.

Kemp, R. and Soete, L., 1992. The greening of technological progress : An evolutionary

perspective. Futures, 24(5), p.437-457.

Kemp, R. and Soete, L.L., 1990. Inside the « green box »:on the economics of technological

change and the environment. Pinter, p.245-257

Khazzoom, D., 1980. « Economic implications of mandated efficiency in standards or

household appliances », Energy Journal , 1, 5, p. 21– 40.

Kline, S. and Rosenberg, N., 1986. An overview of innovation. The positive sum strategy:

harnessing technology for economic growth, p.31.

Koestler, A., 1967. The Ghost in the Machine, Penguin (Non-Classics).

Malaman, R., 1996. Technological innovation for sustainable development: generation and

diffusion of industrial cleaner technologies. Fondazione Enrico Mattei, Working paper

EEE, 66.

Malerba, F., 2002. Sectoral systems of innovation and production. Research Policy, 31(2),

p.247-264.

Markusson and Olofsdotter, N et Olofsdotter, A, (2001), Drivers of Environmental

Innovation, VINNOVA Innovation i fokus, vol. 1.

Mayumi, K. and Gowdy, J.M., 1999. Bioeconomics and Sustainability: Essays in Honor of

Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen, Edward Elgar Pub.

22

McCarthy, T., 2006. Henry Ford, Industrial Conservationist? Take-back, waste reduction and

recycling at the Rouge. Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International Journal, 3(4),

p.302 - 328.

Nieddu, M., Garnier, E. 2010. Vers un modèle pluriel de bioraffinerie ?. Biofutur, N°312

Nuij, R., 2001. Eco-innovation: Helped or hindered by Integrated Product Policy. The Journal

of Sustainable Product Design, 1, p.49–51.

Odum, E.P., 1969. The Strategy of Ecosystem Development. Science, 164(3877), p.262 -270.

OECD, 2010. Eco-Innovation in Industry: Enabling Green Growth.

Oltra, V. and Saint Jean, M., 2005. Environmental innovation and clean technology: an

evolutionary framework. Cahiers du GREThA, 2008-28, p.27.

Oltra, V., 2008. Environmental innovation and industrial dynamics: the contributions of

evolutionary economics. Working paper of GREThA, (2008-28), p.26.

Oltra, V. and Saint Jean, M., 2009. Sectoral systems of environmental innovation: An

application to the French automotive industry. Technological Forecasting and Social

Change, 76(4), p.567-583.

Oltra, V., Kemp, René and De Vries, F., 2009. Patents as a Measure for Eco-Innovation. ,

(2009-05), p.20.

Overcash, M., 1996. Cleaner production : basic principles and development. Clean

Technology, 2(1), p.1-6.

Passet, R., 1979. L’économique et le vivant, Payot.

Patingre, J.-F. and Vigneron, J., 2001. Eco-conception : concept, méthodes, outils, guides et

perspectives Economica.,

Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C., 1995. Toward a New Conception of the Environment-

Competitiveness Relationship. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(4), p.97-118.

Rennings, K., 2000. Redefining innovation -- eco-innovation research and the contribution

from ecological economics. Ecological Economics, 32(2), p.319-332.

Ricardo, D., 2004. The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, Dover Publications Inc.

Sathre, R. and Grdzelishvili, I., 2006. Industrial symbiosis in the former Soviet Union.

Progress in Industrial Ecology, An International Journal, 3, p.379-392.

23

Schumpeter, Joseph A., 1939. Business Cycles: A Theoretical, Historical, and Statistical

Analysis of the Capitalist Process. McGraw-Hill., New York and London.

Schumpeter, J.A, 1934. The theory of economic development: an inquiry into profits, capital,

credit, interest, and the business cycle, Transaction Publishers.

Tan, R.R., Culaba, A.B. and Purvis, M.R.I., 2002. Application of possibility theory in the life-

cycle inventory assessment of biofuels. International Journal of Energy Research,

26(8), p.737-745.

Du Tertre, C., 2007. Investissements immatériels et « patrimoine collectif immatériel ». In

Secteurs et territoire dans les régulations émergentes. Paris: C. Laurent et C. du Tertre

(éd.), p. 1-19.

Theys, J., 1993. L’environnement à la recherche d’une définition. Notes de méthode de

l’IFEN, (1).

van den Bergh, J.C.J.M., Truffer, B. and Kallis, G., 2011. Environmental innovation and

societal transitions: Introduction and overview. Environmental Innovation and

Societal Transitions, 1(1), p.1-23.

Vernon, R., 1966. International investiment and international trade in the product cycle.

Quarterly Journal of Economics, (80), p.190-207.

Vivien, F-D. 2007. Sustainable development : un problème de traduction. Responsabilité et

environnement, n° 48, 4.