Enhancing universities’ impact on sustainability: Lessons from international best practices

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

Workshop summary

1

2

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

Enhancing universities’ impact on sustainability: lessons from international best practices Workshop summary

Overview of the workshop and key takeaways Workshop Overview The virtual workshop “Enhancing universities’ impact on sustainability: lessons from international best practices”, held on 17 November 2022, discussed international best practices on universities’ collaboration activities contributing to sustainable transitions that could inform policy reforms in Italy. To do so, the workshop brought together experts, practitioners, and academics from different OECD countries to discuss with stakeholders from Italy. The workshop drew upon specific collaboration/co-creation projects in which universities play a leading role and that involve businesses and also actors from civil society to address local or regional challenges linked to sustainability.

Panel 1, “Uncovering universities’ contribution to sustainability: lessons from specific cocreation projects”, provided insights on a number of collaboration/co-creation projects in which universities play a leading role and that involve businesses and other actors to address local or regional sustainability challenges.

Panel 2, “Supporting universities’ impact on sustainability: policy perspectives”, allowed international practitioners and policy experts to provide their perspectives on the specific programmes implemented in their countries to support universities’ social impact activities.

Insights of the event will feed into a report on international practices on co-creation for the green transition that will be developed by the OECD-TIP.

Key Takeaways 1. Joining efforts of a wide diversity of actors to successfully address a common purpose remains challenging. Challenges arise due to differences in “language” used across disciplines and sectors, as well as differences in incentives and timelines. In the context of the Austrian Mobility Labs initiative, a year-long conversation amongst stakeholders in the mobility sector was needed to jointly define the meaning and purpose of “Living Labs”. Projects that call for citizen involvement, as is the case of the aspern.mobil LAB (Austria), face the additional challenge of obtaining citizen contributions over the course of the project.

2. Leveraging existing networks and digital tools is key to overcome challenges.

For the GreenCoLab in Portugal, progressively creating a network around the lab with the support of a range of actors such as chambers of commerce has enhanced its visibility and increased the number of participants to their projects over time. In the case of aspern.mobil LAB in Austria, the use of digital tools was equally critical to find new contributors and engage citizens in their projects.

3. Complementarity and trust among partners are essential for successful cocreation. The Low Carbon Eco-Innovatory in the UK, the Lorraine Smart Cities Living Lab and the international project DEMO4GREEN have benefited from

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

having partners with diverse expertise and profiles, which gave them flexibility to take over a wide diversity of projects.

4. Expectations about co-creation outcomes should be realistic to avoid frustration and disappointment both at the policy and project levels. If expectations are too high and projects are expected to deliver too quickly, it may result in high pressure and discouragement among the parties involved in newlycreated co-creation initiatives. Being agile and adjusting plans in face of changing circumstances or priorities is equally relevant to ensure initiatives continue to deliver on their full potential.

5. More regular monitoring and evaluation of co-creation policy initiatives is needed. Regular iteration with beneficiaries and involvement of independent advisors in such evaluation processes helps steering policies in the right direction.

For instance, the Knowledge Exchange Framework in the UK was reviewed based on feedback from the sector and users gathered after the first results launched in 2021, which allowed refining the methodology and dashboard designs. In Portugal, each CoLAB counts with international independent mentors that have a double role as advisors (as they support CoLABs’ processes of strategic planning) and evaluators (as they conduct annual assessments of their progress). This allows for steering the implementation of CoLABs over time.

Project Background The workshop was organised by the OECD Science and Technology Policy Division in the context of the project “Improving the system of knowledge exchange and collaboration between universities and society in Italy” (“ITA.CON” project) supporting the Italian Ministry of Universities and Research. The project is carried out by the OECD with the financial support of the European Union via the Technical Support Instrument and in cooperation with the European Commission’s DG Structural Reform Support. The project is led by the OECD Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities with contributions on international best practice from the OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation.

The workshop draws on and contributes to the activities of the Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP) on knowledge transfer/co-creation and systems transitions.

Other relevant resources on knowledge transfer and co-creation produced by the TIP can be found in Annex 1 and here: https://stip.oecd.org/knowledge-transfer/

Welcome and introductory remarks Alessandra Colecchia, Head of the Science and Technology Policy Division of the Directorate for Science, Technology and Innovation (STI) at the OECD, and Raffaele Trapasso, Senior Economist at the Centre for Entrepreneurship, SMEs, Regions and Cities of the OECD, opened the workshop and welcomed the speakers.

Fluvio Esposito, Adviser at the Italian Ministry for Universities and Research, followed with an overview of the ITA.CON project objectives and the Italian context. According to Mr. Esposito, the collaboration potential of Italian universities is strong but largely underutilized. Universities find difficulties to identify innovation needs and translate research into useful products. Italy is missing comprehensive policies and appropriate legal framework to foster the capacities of universities to generate societal and economic value.

To tackle these challenges, the ITA.CON project raises the question: which reforms are needed to favour the university-society dialogue and fully tap into its impact for societal progress and economic goals?

3

4

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

The workshop continued with the intervention of Caroline Paunov, Senior Economist and Head of the Secretariat of the OECD Working Party on Innovation and Technology Policy (TIP), who emphasized the importance of learning from international good practices and provided some pertinent references to past TIP work on knowledge transfer and collaboration (see Annex 1).

Sandra Planes-Satorra, Policy Analyst at the OECD, introduced the structure of the workshop and provided an overview of the international co-creation case studies that were discussed in Panel 1 (Table 1).

Panel 1. Uncovering universities’ contribution to sustainability: lessons from specific co-creation projects The first panel was moderated by Byeongwon Park, Research Fellow at the Science and Technology Policy Institute (STEPI), Korea. Speakers of panel 1 shared their experiences and lessons learned from five specific co-creation projects (Table 1):

Table 1. Speakers and projects presented in panel 1 Speakers Hugo Pereira, General Coordinator of the GreenCoLab, Portugal

Project GreenCoLab (Portugal, 2019-ongoing)

Hilda Tellioglu, Associate Professor at TU Wien

aspern.mobil LAB (Austria 2017-ongoing)

Paul Dickson (Project Manager) and Lesley Lambert (Industry Liaison Officer) at Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU); Matthew Fulton, Project Manager at University of Liverpool Maria Rossetti, Project manager at MADE - Competence Centre Industria 4.0

Low Carbon EcoInnovatory (United Kingdom, 2015ongoing)

Mauricio Camargo, Director of ERPI Laboratory, Université de Lorraine

Lorraine Smart Cities Living Lab (France, 2008-ongoing)

DEMO4GREEN (international, JanuaryDecember 2022)

Short description Initiated by the Centre of Marine Sciences and other five founding partners with the objective of bringing together researchers and businesses to drive innovation in the field of algae biotechnology Initiated by Vienna University of Technology, aspern.mobil LAB offers a space for universities, companies, citizens, and the government to participate in joint innovation for a more sustainable and inclusive local mobility system.

Initiated by Liverpool John Moores University, University of Liverpool and Lancaster University to co-create jointly with regional SMEs for improved goods, processes and services that directly address the climate emergency.

Consortium of three universities, one competence center and four research and technology transfer centers from 8 countries. The consortium carries out demonstration of digital technologies to reduce carbon footprint of industry in 8 Teaching and Learning Factories. It also provides business coaching to support SMEs and startups bring green technologies to the market Located in the University of Lorraine (Nancy, France), the living lab collaborates with local authorities/municipalities, companies, citizens and incubators to co-create user-centered solutions related to the green transition.

What were key success factors of the project? What were the main challenges faced?

Speakers shared their experience about challenges encountered during the implementation of co-creation projects, which included obtaining needed funding, accessing or building the right infrastructure as well as ensuring visibility of the projects. Finding funding was the most common challenge stressed in three out of the five cases (aspern.mobil LAB, the Low Carbon Eco-Innovatory and the GreenCoLab). Hilda Tellioglu emphasised that exploring different sources of funding for co-creation projects was highlighted as particularly important. Finding a place to operate with the required infrastructure was also challenge both in the case of aspern.mobil LAB and the GreenCoLab. Another difficulty stressed by the panellists was increasing the visibility about the co-creation project in order to engage

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

with the public, and finding the right actor(s) to play leading roles in them as well as to make share the outcomes would be widely shared.

Differences in language used across sectors and disciplines, as well as the well-known challenges arising from different incentives of researchers in academic institutions from those of industry actors, are also important barriers. This requires not only a change of mindset in universities and amongst professors, but also adjusting academic reward systems.

The ability of projects to adapt to firms’ specific needs and capacities was identified as the key success factors in the case of DEMO4GREEN and the Low Carbon Eco-Innovatory – both of which engage with SMEs. As mentioned by Matthew Fulton, in his experience over the past decade researchers’ interest in working with smaller companies increased and gave SMEs the chance to develop ideas that would not have been explored without the help of universities.

What are the main lessons learned from the experience?

Speakers highlighted the importance of “sharing a common purpose” and trust building among co-creators. Mr. Dickson and Mr. Pereira stressed the importance of creating and maintaining trusted relations with partners to build co-creation. Tiago Santos Pereira said that the transitions are increasing the importance of sustainability in academia. There is a sense of urgency, also felt in the research community, to bring sustainable ideas into innovation projects.

Building complementary networks and strengthening the research assets was another main lesson mentioned by Mr. Dickson and Mr. Pereira. Mr. Camargo added that, in multidisciplinary and cross-sectoral projects, there needs to balance between different profiles.

For Mr. Pereira, social networks allowed attracting relevant stakeholders and improving communication with the project’s partners.

Other main lessons from the discussion were to "stay open and listen" to the opinions of stakeholders in order to make an impact (mentioned by Ms. Rossetti); and adapt to the changing circumstances to quickly discard what does not work (mentioned by Hilda Tellioglu).

5

6

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

Panel 2. Supporting universities’ impact on sustainability: policy perspectives Panel 2 was moderated by Alberto Di Minin, Full Professor of Management at Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna, Italy. Speakers of this panel presented insights from 3 specific policy initiatives from Austria, Portugal and the United Kingdom, respectively (Table 2):

Table 2. Speakers and policy initiatives presented in panel 2 Speakers Tiago Santos Pereira, Senior Researcher at the Centre for Social Studies of the University of Coimbra

Policy initiative Collaborative Laboratories (CoLABs) (Portugal, 2017- ongoing)

Short description The CoLABs are new research organisations, launched in 2017, with a number of objectives: (a) to strengthen links between academia and industry in Portugal; (b) promote private investment in R&D, promote research-based innovation across the industrial sectors; (c) promote employment of highly qualified human resources in research; (d) densify the territorial distribution of research activities; (e) promote research and innovation agenda targeting social and economic impact; (f) engage with new modes of co-creation.

Ellen Bamford, Head of Evidence and Analysis at Research England

Knowledge Exchange Framework (KEF) (United Kingdom, 2017 ongoing)

Mathias Mitteregger, Policy Advisor at AustriaTech

Austrian Mobility Labs initiative (Austria, 2014 - ongoing)

KEF provides a range of information on the knowledge exchange activities of Higher Education Providers (HEPs) in England to enable universities to better understand their performance in knowledge exchange and incentivise continuous improvement.

The KEF platform allows exploring data and explanations of the different ways they work with their external partners, from businesses to community groups, for the benefit of the economy and society.

Austrian Mobility Labs bring together people from different backgrounds - from technology developers and urban planners to residents of a city – to provide a cooperative setting that enables exchange between different actors; provide a dedicated research infrastructure to develop the mobility of the future; create test environments, in which piloting and optimization can take place under real-world conditions; bring innovations in contact with future users and decision-makers.

What are the most innovative aspects of the policy initiative?

Discussing Portugal’s CoLABs, Tiago Santos Pereira explained that they were conceived as new research organisations with joint funding. CoLABs have a minimum of three partners, of which at least one should be a business firm and one an academic institution.

Co-Labs need to go through a process of certification, and their activities are evaluated through time to see whether the CoLAB’s business model is sustainable. After a certain amount of time, public funds should only make up for 1/3rd of the overall resources, while 1/3rd would have to come from competitive funding and 1/3rd from private sources.

Regarding the Knowledge Exchange Framework, Ellen Bamford explained that an innovative aspect was that Research England developed a clustering mechanism by which universities are grouped into clusters with similar capabilities, which facilitates comparisons with peers of the same cluster. This is much more useful for institutions than comparing all institutions with each other without taking into account their particularities (e.g. specialization, regional characteristics, etc.).

As to the Austria Mobility Labs, Mathias Mitteregger explained that in 2014 the Austrian government invited the entire community in the mobility sector to work on a clear definition on an Austrian approach to living labs. This was a very innovative approach, as it brought together actors that would normally be in competition with each other.

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

What are lessons learned to support co-creation in the future?

The following issues were raised as key to ensure programme success: •

Nurturing a culture of co-creation: Tiago Santos Pereira highlighted that in the case of the Co-Labs, the approach of bringing the parties together is a good example for other countries, but he warned that just being together is not enough, in the sense that it is necessary to nurture the culture of co-creation.

•

Managing expectations: Mathias Mitteregger emphasised that in the field of cocreation of new technologies an important issue was to manage expectations.

Typically, researchers try to explore new methodologies and tend to overestimate their potential – this can result in high pressure on everybody involved in the initiative. Mr. Mitteregger pointed out that lately there had been a much clearer understanding of the mission and the potential of living labs.

•

Effective risk sharing: Tiago Santos Pereira highlighted the importance of risk sharing among all participants in co-creation projects – in the case of CoLABs, they count on eight partners on average.

•

Identifying needs from different actors: Ellen Bamford explained that the Knowledge Exchange Framework was designed very closely with universities, but that Research England is currently reflecting on future directions for this tool based on the expectations of businesses as well, so as to capture the more specific requests from those firms that would like to partner with universities.

•

Ensuring regular coordination and exchange: Mathias Mitteregger explained that AustriaTech had the role of intermediating between the Mobility Labs, with moments of cooperation between Labs, and others in which they competed against each other. It is crucial to have a platform where Mobility Labs regularly meet, where the consortium plans the agenda and co-creates the basic decisions. Tiago Santos Pereira stressed that CoLABs also played a role of intermediaries, by ensuring that research agendas were developed jointly by all partners – including business and academia.

•

Contributing to societal challenges: Ellen Bamford signalled that the innovation community had come a long way in terms of tech transfer and knowledge transfer: to her, it was necessary at this point to consider that the collaboration between stakeholders for the benefit of the overall society was the ultimate aim of the cocreating activity. A key way of doing so is, as a funding body, to incentivise behaviour changes and fund activities that foster that kind of positive co-creation.

Alberto Di Minin raised three points in his concluding remarks. First, there is a need to consider the relation between the co-creation bodies and the territories in which they are located, with a balance to find between embeddedness and wider mission. Second, stability of the policy support environment is essential for the evolution of co-creation policies.

Third, besides providing fiscal incentives, it is important to keep in mind the cultural aspects of co-creation.

7

8

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

Closing remarks In the closing remarks Fulvio Esposito thanked the speakers and said the case studies presented in the workshop are very instructive for the Italian project as examples of what can be done in terms of interactions, exchanges in research-society and the role of intermediaries. According to Mr. Esposito, Italian universities are often reluctant to the concept of intermediaries because they are still moving in the domain of bilateral university-business knowledge exchange. When users and co-creation are brought into the picture, he believes there is a need for intermediaries and to transform how universities operate.

Finally, Alessandra Colecchia reflected on the main take-ways of the project. According to Ms. Colecchia, the unit of analysis for co-creation should not be universities, but the partnerships created in co-creation projects. A lot of the challenges in the international experiences presented arrive from systems that are not fit to support such partnerships. The cases presented illustrate the need to improve dynamic capabilities: the ability of the partnerships to be flexible, and to listen and react to local contexts. Proactivity, bottom-up approaches, and experimentation are also becoming more relevant. In terms of soft components of change, there is a need for shifting mindsets in the ways partnerships operate by creating finance models that accommodate public-private partnerships and taking advantages from the complementariness in the teams. Making the engagement successful is another constraint expressed by the speakers. New tools and approaches can help in communication activities, finding spaces for engagement and encouraging participation in co-creation projects.

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

9

Annex 1. STI-TIP references on universities’ collaborations for innovation Title

Year

Author

Abstract

Reference

“Knowledge triangle synthesis report: Enhancing the contributions of higher education and research to innovation”

2017

OECD

This report focuses on the knowledge triangle as a policy framework to enhance the contributions of higher education institutions (HEIs) and public research institutions/organisations (PRIs/PROs) to innovation eco-systems at national, local and global levels. The knowledge triangle is a practical policy framework that focuses on integrating the missions and functions of higher education systems notably, education, research, innovation and societal engagement. The report provides a comprehensive overview of the theoretical and practical basis of the KT framework and a set of policy recommendations based on lessons from national and institutional reforms in OECD countries

https://community. oecd.org/docs/DO C-166243

“How is researched policy across the OECD organized?

Insights from a new policy database”

2018

Martin Borowiecki and Caroline Paunov

Building on a newly created policy indicator database, this paper provides a first systematic comparison of the governance of public research policy across 35 OECD countries from 2005 to 2017. The database was obtained following a threeyear process that involved the development of an ontology of the governance of public research policy as well as data collection and validation by national authorities. The data show diverse institutions and mechanisms of policy action regarding higher education institutions (HEIs) and public research institutes (PRIs) are in place across the 35 OECD countries. The data also shows an increasing use of project funding, performance contracts and performance evaluations for HEIs and PRIs. In many countries, HEIs and PRIs are autonomous regarding their relations with industry, budget allocation but less frequently regarding salaries.

Recent reforms have strengthened external stakeholders' participation in their governance. The database is publicly available on the following webpage: https://stip.oecd.org/resgov.

https://doi.org/10.1 787/235c9806-en

“UniversityIndustry Collaboration”

2019

OECD

This report discusses challenges and opportunities in assessing the impacts of science-industry knowledge exchange on innovation. The report provides new evidence on joint industry-science patenting activity and academic start-ups, as well as on the impact of geographical proximity between research institutions and industry on local innovation. The report explores the complex set of knowledgetransfer channels, such as collaborative research, co-patenting, academic spinoffs, and their relative importance across science fields and industry sectors.

It also experiments with using labour force survey data to assess the contributions of graduates in social sciences to different industries.

https://doi.org/10.1 787/e9c1e648-en

“Science-industry knowledge exchange: a mapping of policy instruments and their interactions”

2019

José Guimón and Caroline Paunov

Countries deploy a variety of financial, regulatory and soft policy instruments to promote science-industry knowledge exchange. While these instruments are often discussed in isolation, they are implemented collectively and may reinforce and complement but also weaken or even negatively affect each other and add excessive complexity. This paper develops a conceptual framework to map policy instruments for knowledge exchange and assess the interactions between them.

The framework also considers how national contexts and global trends influence the choice of policy instruments. Policy examples drawn from the EC-OECD STIP Compass database and from case studies show that there are significant differences across countries in the relative importance given to each policy instrument in terms of budget, target groups, eligibility criteria, time horizon and implementation. These differences are also a consequence of different country conditions.

https://doi.org/10.1 787/66a3bd38-en

“Cross-country evidence on the contributions of research institutions to innovation”

2019

Caroline Paunov, Martin Borowieck and Nevine ElMallakh

This paper presents preliminary evidence on the patenting activities of 21 200 research institutions - 20 091 higher education institutions (HEIs) and 1 109 public research institutes (PRIs) - for 36 OECD countries and China from 1992 to 2014.

Our evidence, which builds on a database that matches research institutions to a sample of their patent applications, indicates patent applications to the European Patent Office (EPO) filed by research institutions grew faster than industry patents.

Those jointly filed by industry and research institutions grew even faster. However, research institutions’ share in patent applications remains low and their ratio of patents granted to applications is below that of industry. An econometric analysis at postal code level shows that geographical proximity to research institutions is associated with higher industry patenting. Results from an instrumental variable estimation indicate that research institutions positively influence local industry patenting, including in life sciences and digital technologies.

https://doi.org/10.1 787/d52d6176-en

10 

ENHANCING UNIVERSITIES’ IMPACT ON SUSTAINABILITY: LESSONS FROM INTERNATIONAL BEST PRACTICES

“Improving knowledge transfer and collaboration between science and business in Spain”

2022

OECD

This study provides an in-depth assessment of Spain’s innovation system and the current state of knowledge transfer and collaboration. It identifies five priority areas for reform and long-term investment that should provide the basis of a new Roadmap. These include granting greater operational autonomy to universities and public research organisations in return for accountability on outcomes, putting in place a better integrated system of incentives that takes both individuals and organisations into account, and ensuring sustained investment in core capabilities to connect science and business. To put these reforms in motion and sustain them over time, a new type of covenant between science and society is needed in Spain today. This should be based on a ‘new deal’ between actors in the science and innovation system and society at large, committing to place the pursuit of concrete social benefits in return for more stable and predictable support.

https://doi.org/10.1 787/4d787b35-en

“Co-creation during COVID-19: comparative international case studies”

2022

Muthu de Silva, Orlagh Lavelle, Nikolas Schmidt and Caroline Paunov

Co-creation – the joint production of innovation between combinations of industry, research, government and civil society – was widely used to respond to the challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic. This paper describes 30 COVID-19 co-creation initiatives from 21 countries and three international cases. The template focuses on initiatives’ core characteristics, including information on key co-creation partners and their contributions, key outcomes as well as the initiatives’ size. The comparative evidence gathered through interviews with case study initiative leaders also describes what co-creation instruments were used, how networks leading to the collaboration were built, what type of cross-disciplinary cooperation took place, and what role governments played in the process and the procedures adopted to deal with the COVID-19 “exceptionality”, including the urgency of producing implementable solutions. The information gathered provides a basis for analyses on co-creation initiatives during COVID-19 and for drawing potential policy implications.

https://doi.org/10.1 787/08f79edd-en

“How did COVID19 shape cocreation?”

2022

Muthu de Silva, Nikolas Schmidt, Caroline Paunov and Orlagh Lavelle

Co-creation – the joint production of innovation between combinations of industry, research, government and civil society – was widely used to respond to COVID-19 challenges. This paper analyses 30 international co-creation initiatives that were implemented to address COVID-19 challenges. Evidence on these initiatives was gathered based on structured interviews with initiative leaders. Existing co-creation networks enabled the rapid emergence of new initiatives to address urgent needs, while digital technologies enabled establishing new – and, where necessary, socially distanced – collaborations. Aside from funding initiatives, governments engaged actively in co-creation by granting access to their networks, advising on initiative goals and offering support to improve quick delivery. The role of civil society was important as well, and the socially impactful nature of research and innovation was a motivating factor for engagement. Harnessing a similarly strong motivation is an important driver of effective future co-creation endeavours also to address the challenges of the green transition.

https://doi.org/10.1 787/e11c5274-en

“Innovation Policy Review of Germany: Building agility for successful transitions”

2022

OECD

The COVID-19 pandemic and the Ukraine war have revealed vulnerabilities in Germany’s economic model: undiversified energy supply, an over-reliance on fossil fuels, delayed digitalisation and disruptable supply chains. Digital technologies may significantly disrupt manufacturing industries Germany has dominated for decades, threatening future competitiveness. The green transition also requires significant industrial transformations. Germany can call upon one of the world’s most advanced innovation systems in dealing with these challenges, but a new more agile and experimental approach to STI policy is needed. This Review outlines how to develop such an approach and what STI policies need to focus on: create markets for future innovations, more significant and more risktolerant finance for innovation, inter-disciplinary knowledge exchange, improved data infrastructure and capabilities. Given the internationally shared challenges of dealing with transitions, the insights presented in the review will be of interest to policymakers, stakeholders and analysts from Germany and across the OECD.

https://doi.org/10.1 787/50b32331-en