Institutional entrepreneurship and climate friendly innovations in agricultural production Herman Stål

Abstract: For the legitimization and diffusion of eco-innovations policy has an important role to play and is in this paper approached as an example of institutional entrepreneurship. The paper explores Swedish policy activities aiming at GHG reduction in the agricultural sector. A qualitative case study of the attempts to develop political strategies was conducted. The results show that policy activities perform different functions in relation to existing eco-innovations and that legitimization is dependent upon how well ecoinnovations can be theorized according to existing political goals. 1

Reports from SBA dealing with GHG emissions as well as other environmental or agricultural issues produced outside the project were used along with extensive background material from trade journals and different newsletters collected to explore ongoing issues and debates within the Swedish agricultural sector. This data was used to build up an understanding of prevailing logics as well as the roles and positions of affiliated actors. Biographical notes: Herman Stål is a PhD Candidate at the Umea School of Business at Umea University in Sweden where he has been working since 2009. His research focuses on institutional entrepreneurship and practice change following the need to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture. Apart from this he teaches in entrepreneurship and business development. Prior to being a PhD he has been working as a consultant for Swedish NGO: s and within the Swedish energy sector. He holds an MSc in Business and Administration from the Stockholm School of Economics (SSE) which he completed in 2005.

1

Introduction Eco-innovations denote such new ideas, behavior, products and processes that reduce environmental problems (Hellström 2007; Rennings 2000). For such to develop and diffuse policy has an important role to fulfill (Kemp 1997; Porter, and van der Linde 1995; Norbergh-Bohm 1999). Further new ideas need to be legitimized and here policy provides a source for legitimacy as putting forth particular ideas as solutions to environmental problems. Policy also contains formal mechanisms for diffusion and thus may function as a route to institutionalization of new practices. Activities within the policy making process aiming to develop political strategies can therefore be regarded as early stages of institutional entrepreneurship as they may contribute to the institutionalization of eco-innovations within a wider field of practice (cf. Lounsbury, and Crumley 2007).

This paper reports on a case study from the Swedish agricultural sector more specifically on activities aiming to develop a political strategy to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the sector. Eco-innovations in agriculture are of a high importance for GHG reduction as agricultural practices could both mitigate climate change but also causes great emissions (IPCC 2007; FAO 2007). Policy making is perhaps particularly important for the agricultural sector as farmers receive a large part of their income from different supports part of the EU CAP regulative framework. Thus the development of new supports may affect the activities within the sector creating opportunities for farmers and help to diffuse eco-innovations among them.

2

Stepping into the policy process makes it possible to explore the particular roles that policy makers perform in relation to eco-innovations. Previous research focusing on institutionalization of new practices have attenuated that diffusion occurs through translation (Czarniawska, and Joerghes 1996; Latour 1989). Actors pick up innovations, modify them and pass them in accordance with their own frames. Thus in relation to a particular idea for eco-innovation a policy actor may perform different roles.

The purpose with this paper is therefore to explore the roles of potential institutional entrepreneurs in the policy process in relation to ideas of eco-innovations.

This purpose is addressed through a case study of a project led by the Swedish Board of Agriculture (SBA) aiming to develop political strategies to reduce GHG emissions from the sector. Such a political strategy includes both suggestions of proper interventions – the eco-innovations that are needed to reduce emissions – and the policy mechanisms for diffusing them within the farming community.

The paper is structured in the following way – first the literature on institutional entrepreneurship is introduced and related to the concept of eco-innovation. Second the institutional context for the study – the agricultural field and agricultural policy making is presented. Third the chosen methodology – a qualitative case study is motivated. Fourth the data describing the case – the project led by SBA is presented with reference to the discussions concerning possible eco-innovations and the roles that institutional entrepreneurs performed in relation to these ideas.

3

Institutional entrepreneurship Although rooted in neo institutional theory (DiMaggio, and Powell 1983; Meyer, and Rowan 1977) institutional entrepreneurship literature focuses on change rather than conformity (Garud, Hardy, and Maguire 2007; Hardy and Maguire 2008). In particular the role of actors and their activities are the focal unit of analysis (Greenwood, and Suddaby 2006; Hardy, and Maguire 2008). Actors include both individuals as well as organizations of various kinds (Battilana, Boxenbaum, and Leca 2009). This is however not the same as suggesting that particular institutional entrepreneurs have “superpowers” or possess particular reflective skills that enable them to change the structures that other actors succumb to (cf. Hardy, and Maguire 2008). Institutional entrepreneurship is most often a collective process were different actors perform different parts in the institutionalization of new practices (Hardy, and Maguire 2008). The policy makers focused in this paper are but one of these actors albeit have access to powerful tools of shaping and influencing the practices within an institutional context (cf. DiMaggio, and Powell 1983). Further actors are themselves embedded in wider systems of meaning such as market or policy discourse that delimit their scope for agency and shape the frames that they depart from (Thornton, and Occasio 2008). The institutional context or institutional field is therefore most often a varied and heterogenic structured environment where actors occupy various roles, succumb to different rules, norms and understandings and often contest and conflict over rising issues. For instance although wide spread issues such as GHG reduction may not be contested at the field level – the Swedish agricultural and related food sector has seen the emergence of a wide range of initiatives and activities (Bonnedahl, and Eriksson 2011) there might still be considerable controversy over what the legitimate means are to address the issue. The institutional field of

4

agriculture can thus be pictured as “a set of organizations that constitute a recognized area of life, are characterized by structural network relations, and share a set of institutions” (Lawrence, and Phillips 2004: 692). Institutions in turn are defined as “rules, practices and understandings” (ibid).

From this perspective the various initiatives to address the issue of GHG reduction within agriculture can be understood as the emergence of an institutional logic tying together rules, understandings and practices (cf. Thornton, and Occasio 1999; Reay, and Hinings 2009). Institutional logics define the more or less shared definition of the goals to be pursued and the legitimate means for doing this within an institutional field (Battilana, Boxenbaum, and Leca 2009). For the attempts to shape and construct such emerging logics actors use institutional strategies - “patterns of organizational action concerned with the formation and transformation of institutions, fields and the rules and standards that control those structures” (Lawrence 1999: 168). Thus the development of a political strategy is one example of such an institutional strategy containing ideas about what eco-innovations that are desirable and what policy that is needed to support them.

From the perspective of eco-innovations – the ideas themselves addressing the issue – such a strategy contains an example of theorization (Greenwood, Suddaby, and Hinings 2002). Theorization involves conceptualizing failures or problems and linking them to potential solutions (Greenwood, Suddaby, and Hinings 2002). Eco-innovations are simplified and distilled to provide a solution or intervention for a particular political

5

problem – here GHG reduction. This potentially provides eco-innovations with important legitimacy furthering their diffusion and institutionalization within the field.

However acknowledging the importance of theorization for the diffusion of ecoinnovations it could also be suggested that potential institutional entrepreneurs may perform other roles in relation eco-innovations. Policy makers may also choose not to adopt ideas or resist them. Further for eco-innovations to be adopted into policy the need to be fitted to the particular institutional frame guiding this type of actor. Thus actors within the policy process may perform different roles in relation to suggested ecoinnovations. Increasing the understanding of such roles and their linkages to the particular policy context would increase our knowledge of how eco-innovations are institutionalized within a field.

Agriculture, policy making and eco-innovations Agriculture is very much on the agenda in relation to climate change. First food production cause a major part of both global and domestic GHG emissions (IPCC 2007; Jordbruksverket 2008). Growing levels of population as well as steadily increased consumption of meat increase the carbon foot print of food production. Thus the need for eco-innovations in processes, products and technology involved in the production of food is urgent. But there are also possibilities for agriculture to reduce GHG emissions for instance by acting as a carbon sink or by producing renewable energy that can replace fossil fuel. In the debate there are various ideas of how agriculture might also constitute part of the solution to mitigating climate change (IPCC 2007).

6

In recent years there has been an upsurge in initiatives within the agricultural field that address the issue of climate change and GHG reduction. These include a climate labeling initiative (Bonnedahl, and Eriksson 2011), projects by LRF the dominant trade union for farmers, a rich production of Life Cycle Analysis of various agricultural commodities (cf. Sonesson, Cederberg, Flysjo, and Carlsson 2008). There have also been activities taking place within the political system. In 2008 funds were redistributed within EU CAP to address what was labeled as “new challenges” including climate and renewable energy production. This meant that Swedish policy makers got access to new finances for supporting eco-innovation within the field. The current agro-policy is directed through the RDP – the national part of EU CAP – which contains policy mechanisms such as project funding, investment supports and environmental supports. The current RDP runs between 2007 and 2013 containing financial supports to a value of 35 billion SEK. Currently there are 484 million SEK set aside for activities dealing with renewable energy or climate change (Jordbruksverket 2010: b).

In 2008 the Swedish government gave the Swedish Board of Agriculture (SBA) the mission to construct a political strategy to reduce GHG emissions from the sector. The strategy was supposed to address the development between 2011 and 2016 but also to contain an outlook for 2020 and construct tools that would be useful for the long run approach. SBA is the sector responsible governmental agency functioning both as an administrator of current policy but also as an expert authority. In this latter role SBA investigate various agricultural matters and suggest policy changes. This is often done in close cooperation with agricultural researchers and experts as well as representatives of

7

the farming community. The policy regime within Swedish agriculture is traditionally focused on cooperation with stake holders and creating incentives for behavioral change rather than regulating through laws and restrictions. The overarching goal of the SBA is to ensure the competiveness and survival of the Swedish agricultural sector which is a political goal with roots in the war time need to secure domestic food production. However in recent years environmental goals and issues have climbed the political as well as the organizational agenda. The RDP contains various examples of supports that are linked to environmental problems and goals. These include biodiversity, pesticide use and nutrient leakage causing eutrophication of lakes and rivers. One type of support is the environmental support where farmers are compensated for performing practices that have an environmental benefit but that are not regarded as profitable. Examples include the supports for keeping semi natural grasslands – which are used as pasture land and valued for securing biodiversity. Such practices are often referred to as environmental services that farmers supply for society but it should be noted that the EU CAP framework only allows financial compensation for the added cost of a practice. Thus these environmental services are a particular type of eco-innovations that on the one hand could be conceptualized as services provided by farmers to the state but also as process innovations that are subsidized.

Method This paper is based on a qualitative case study (Yin 2005) based on the SBA led project set up to answer to the government‟s mission to construct a political strategy. The case provides an opportunity to explore the roles of institutional entrepreneurs within the policy process in relation to eco-innovations. The project engaged both SBA staff and

8

stake holders – mainly agricultural experts – participating through an advisory board. Qualitative methods were applied to explore possible roles and allow for the nuances and reflections of these actors in how they dealt with ideas and suggestions. These methods were considered appropriate given the explorative purpose of the study.

Data collection The data sources for examining the AP project consisted of qualitative interviews as well as written material produced in the project. The latter included the final report, an intermediary draft, written notes from an open workshop and the answers to the referential round held at the end of the project. The interviews were carried out on sight as well as over the phone at the end of the project (the spring of 2010).

The aim was to interview all of the people involved in the project – this included both SBA staff and experts participating through an advisory board. This amounted to 16 people – 4 experts, one industry representative, one SEPA representative (Swedish Environmental Protection Agency) and 10 SBA staff. Two of these – one expert and one staff worker could not be interviewed as they declined to participate in the study. The interviews lasted between one and four hours and utilized open-ended questions that were prepared by extensive studies of background material.i The questions focused on 1) the different change suggestions that SBA staff and experts were investigating 2) how these had been discussed, investigated and decided upon 3) the political goals and consideration that directed the activities.

9

In addition some representatives of stakeholders outside the project were interviewed – for instance a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture was interviewed as well as a representative of a leading environmental NGO.

Data analysis The first step of the analysis was to identify the various eco-innovation ideas discussed in the project. Data describing each idea were drawn together to map out the particular process that each idea had gone through in the project. From these processes an understanding of the different roles that the AP project had performed in relation to the suggested innovations could be developed.

AP project The project built upon earlier reports that had focused on describing the problems – the main emissions sources within Swedish agriculture. The purpose was now to suggest solutions. The project thus serves as an example of how actors in the policy process investigate and select among possible eco-innovations to reduce GHG emissions. The project started in June 2008 and resulted in a final report handed to the government in the end of April 2010. In this final report the SBA made suggestions of strategies including interventions and mechanisms for diffusion. To aid in this work an advisory board consisting of Sweden‟s leading agricultural researchers were assigned to the project.

Eco-innovation ideas Ideas had been collected in previous reports (Jordbruksverket 2008). The “gross list” of total ideas in the project was difficult to exactly pin-point but based on the

10

interviews and various intermediary reports the following table provides a rather comprehensive overview: Eco-innovation discussed Increased energy efficiency

Explanation Replacement of machinery and tools or behavioral changes that reduce the use of energy. Driving tractors in such a way that reduces the use of fuels.

Reduced tillage

Varying between decreasing the “depth” of the plowing to abandoning it totally. This reduces the consumption of fossil fuels for work machines and also increases the amount of carbon stored in the ground.

Change in choice of synthetic fertilizers used

The production of synthetic fertilizers is highly energy intense and sometimes leaks N2O – therefore farmers should choose fertilizers produced with the best available technology.

Use of renewable energy

Changing the type of energy used at the farm e.g. for heating of facilities and work machines. Could mean choosing electricity produced with renewable fuels or replacing fossil fuels with renewable alternatives e.g. ethanol or biogas.

Production of renewable energy  crops for biogas  crops for liquid fuels  crops for solid fuels

Many crops can be used to produce bio gas – for instance ley. Different crops can also be used to produce ethanol (a liquid fuel). But crops can also be utilized as fuels right away and sold to energy producers. Examples of such crops are salix, energy grass and straw that can be cultivated and sold to energy producers. Getting farmers to increase the production of such renewable fuels would reduce the usage of fossil fuels in the energy sector.

Changes concerning organogenic soils  decreased intensity in cultivation  cultivation of energy crops  applying wet lands

Organogenic soils are particularly carbon rich soils that emit CO2 – during the project different suggestions were discussed as to how to reduce these emissions. One suggestion was to switch to crops that were less intensely cultivated. An example of such a crop is perennial ley which is not harvested annually. This could be achieved by either paying farmers for this or prohibiting certain the usage of crops that demanded intense cultivation e.g. potatoes or carrots. Another idea was to put wetlands on organogenic soils. Or to climate compensate in some way by using these soils for production of renewable energy.

Optimizing use of nitrogen

Fertilizing adds nitrogen to soils that are supposed to be absorbed by the crops. However if fertilizing is not optimal there will be levels of nitrogen left in the soil that may turn into N 2O emissions. Therefore it is important to reduce the amount of excess nitrogen in cultivated soils. This for instance affects when and how fertilizers are to be applied as well as what quantities. Optimizing the use of nitrogen also carries synergy effects as this reduces nutrient leakage causing eutrophication of lakes and rivers e.g. the Baltic Sea.

Decaying of farm yard manure

Farm yard manure emits both CH4 and N2O but if decayed the CH4 can be used as biogas if the manure is decayed. Decaying thus creates renewable energy – bio gas – and reduces emissions by preventing CH4 from being emitted. Biogas also reduces emissions by replacing fossil fuels. Imported soy is used as fodder in dairy farming and is heavily criticized for being linked to deforestation – replacing it with domestic alternatives would mean changes in what farmers grow and in how dairy farmers feed their cattle.

Replacing imported soy

Changes in production of meat and milk  increased yields  change feeding practices  food additives Carbon storage in farm land  carbon storage in cultivated soils  adding of bio coal  carbon storage in pasture land and other grass lands Organic farming

Since dairy cattle emit large amounts of CH4 different ways of reducing these emissions were discussed. Increased efficiency that simultaneously does not raise the levels of GHG emissions was discussed as one way to reduce the amount of GHG: s per unit of produce. Another idea discussed concerned different food additives that would reduce the amount of CH 4 that cattle emit. Grasslands used for pasture was discussed as a potential means to store carbon. But crops such as perennial ley that is less intensely cultivated may also be utilized as a carbon sink. Reduced tillage may also be a way to increase the carbon content of arable land. Bio coal is a particular form of solid coal that has been discussed as something that could be added to cultivated soils to increase production.

Organic farming have many beneficial effects on reducing GHG emissions – the main ones being that organic farming does not use synthetic fertilizers or imported protein fodder. The main argument against organic farming was that it produces less output and may therefore lead to changes in land-use elsewhere to accommodate for this reduction in output.

11

From 2008 onwards the SBA staff investigated the ideas in various ways. Researchers were contracted to carry out experimental measurements, the staff presented their ideas to the experts on the advisory board and held an additional work shop as well as a referral round to collect further comments. Through these activities the “gross list” was cut down to a number of eco-innovations that were adopted into the suggested political strategy. This meant that a particular change was coupled with a policy mechanism for diffusing it among farmers.

Project outcome In relation to the discussed eco-innovations three distinct outcomes were produced; ideas were made part of the political strategy, dismissed or chosen to be further investigated. Table 2 (see below) links eco-innovations and outcomes: Practice change discussed Increased energy efficiency

Suggested action To further diffusion through farm counseling/investment supports

Reduced tillage

To further diffusion through farm counseling

Change in choice of synthetic fertilizers used

To further diffusion through farm counseling

Use of renewable energy

Dismissed

Production of renewable energy  crops for biogas  crops for liquid fuels  crops for solid fuels Changes concerning organogenic soils  decreased intensity in cultivation  cultivation of energy crops  applying wet lands Optimizing use of nitrogen Decaying of farm yard manure Replacing imported soy

To further by increasing investment supports/develop innovations

Changes in production of meat and milk  increased yields  change feeding practices  food additives Carbon storage in farm land  carbon storage in cultivated soils  adding of bio coal

To further diffusion through farm counseling

Dismissed

To further diffusion through farm counseling To further diffusion through investment supports To further investigate/develop innovations

To further investigate/develop innovations

12



carbon storage in pasture land and other grass lands Organic farming

Dismissed

One example of an eco-innovation being dismissed was that of changing the cultivation patterns of organogenic soils. The apparent reason was dispute with the participating researcher over its scientific underpinning for the idea: [The SBA had an idea] to finance the cultivation of five year ley on organogenic soils to reduce emissions but I did not think there was any scientific backing for that idea - Researcher What I said was that I cannot guarantee that you will get any effect out of this and then I think it is stupid to launch a support system. And what can I say – the tide turned slowly. But I was already at the beginning skeptical to the suggestion - Researcher

It seems that for an eco-innovation to be adopted into the political strategy it had to be approved by the participating researchers. In a sense they were ultimate experts on whether a particular eco-innovation would really reduce GHG emissions or not.

International research suggested that carbon storage in grasslands could be an important way to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere – these eco-innovation ideas were found to be interesting enough to further investigate. However to increase carbon storage grasslands would have to be fertilized something which would reduce their usefulness as a tool for enhancing biodiversity: There are strong reasons of biodiversity not to do [fertilize] this. – SBA staff We absolutely do not want to fertilize them. – SBA staff

Securing biodiversity is the main reason why the keeping of semi-natural grasslands is currently financially supported by policy: We pay out 700-800 million SEK annually for the keeping of natural grasslands. – SBA staff

13

This example points to the potential conflicts between different policy goals (biodiversity and reduction of GHG emissions). It seems that an eco-innovation could not be advocated if it was in apparent conflicted with other political goals. Biodiversity is an environmental issue that has been given considerable attention in the agricultural sector (Engström, Nilsson, and Finnveden 2007).

But the referral round also revealed attempts from actors formally outside the process – a Swedish environmental NGO and the Ecological Farmers‟ Association to try and have organic farming adopted into the political strategy. Thus this was one example of actors outside the process trying to get the SBA staff to advocate particular ecoinnovations. The SBA staff however resisted this arguing that since organic production had lower yields indirect land-use effects could offset other GHG reductions that the innovation entailed: For instance in the earlier report 2008:11 (Jordbruksverket, 2008) it is concluded that the most important factors when it comes to differences in GHG emissions stem from synthetic fertilizer use (where conventional farmers come out worse) and differences in yields (where organic farmers come out worse). In the report 2010:1 (Jordbruksverket, 2010c) it is concluded that less intensive cultivation with less added nitrogen e.g. organic farming on the one hand leads to less emissions per hectare but also produces lower yields. Thus more land is needed to produce the same yields as before. The effect of organic farming is therefore dependent upon how the land freed by intensified cultivation is used and what this usage means for total emissions – (Jordbruksverket, 2010a:10)

The example points to efforts of actors formally outside the process to try and influence it and suggest eco-innovations that SBA staff was not investigating. Both SBA staff and the participating researchers however dismissed this eco-innovation as an intervention to reduce GHG emissions.

The SBA staff investigated several different renewable energy products from different parts of the farm level production system. Renewable energy could be produced

14

from energy crops such as salix and energy grass. But it could also be produced out of different decay products. The most important decay product to produce bioenergy out of is farm yard manure. Farm yard manure is in itself a source of GHG emissions during storage and dissipation. The structure within the production system – where farmers specialize in either crop cultivation or animal husbandry results in excesses of manure at different farms. Since manure is difficult and expensive to transport the result is instead often that farmers overuse farm yard manure at their croplands to avoid overloading their storage capacity. Decaying excess manure into biogas would create a “double” climate gain. First emissions from the manure itself would be reduced and second biogas could replace the use of fossil fuels in other sectors – mainly transport. There were considerable research efforts behind this eco-innovation and it was already being promoted elsewhere in the field as well in general society (in connection with the development of gas driven vehicles). Investment supports – meaning that farmers that invested in biogas production facilities got a certain percentage of their costs covered for – had been implemented in the current RDP and would therefor exist until 2013. The following suggestions were made: The agency makes a preliminary suggestion to maintain or increase the current campaign with investment supports to manure based biogas [production] (Jordbruksverket, 2010a: 36) This would mean putting up 75 million SEK per annually from 2014 onwards to biogas investments making the total amount 225 million SEK for the period 2014-2016 (Jordbruksverket, 2010a: 36)

Bioenergy production had previously been theorized using other arguments – when efforts to increase salix production among farmers began in the 80s the main argument was to decrease oil dependence (Soderberg 2005). This points to the importance of being able to align suggestions with current policy as well as strong support from the research community.

15

Analysis Eco-innovations such as reduced tillage, production of salix (an energy crop) and decaying of farm yard manure were advocated as part of the solution – the means to reduce GHG emissions from agriculture. By having them advocated within the policy process the expert authority of the agency gave these ideas a normative underpinning. Further by also suggesting policy mechanisms that would support their diffusion the political strategies would also contribute to their institutionalization within the field. Ecoinnovations could be put in the political strategy when they were both supported by participating researchers and possible to adapt to current policy (goals and existing policy implementation). When eco-innovations could not be adopted to these frames they were either dismissed or put on hold for further development. It seems that the participating researchers performed a crucial role in theorizing. They provided the arguments for perceiving a particular eco-innovation as a solution to reduce GHG emissions. When researchers resisted theorization efforts by other actors – the SBA staff or actors outside the process – these ideas were dismissed. If eco-innovations could be theorized the SBA staff then proceeded to adopting the actual strategy or implementation tools to the existing policies. An important issue was to investigate the effect on other policy goals which created additional criteria for judging whether an eco-innovation could be made part of policy. The efforts of SBA staff and researchers thus combined in institutional entrepreneurship contributing to legitimize some of the discussed eco-innovations.

Thus when eco-innovations can be adapted to the frames inherent in policy making they could be legitimized as part of a political strategy to further a political goal – here GHG reduction. This suggests that policy could have a legitimizing role in relation

16

of eco-innovations. But some innovations were instead dismissed suggesting that institutional entrepreneurs in the policy process may also de-legitimize eco-innovations. This was exampled with what happened with organic farming that was dismissed as an eco-innovation to reduce GHG emissions. It seems that the main reason for dismissing eco-innovations was the resistance from participating researchers who regarded certain ideas as unfeasible.

In between these two extremes policy may also partly legitimize ideas by suggesting that they are to be further developed. In this case the institutional entrepreneurs legitimize not the eco-innovation itself but the research and development efforts in developing it. SBA can for instance support applications for research funding as well as set up own research projects. One example was the attempts to come up with carbon storage practices. This appeared promising but it could not be aligned to current policy goals and therefore had to be further investigated.

Because of the implementation tools at the disposal to the SBA staff legitimizing may eventually be followed by institutionalization as eco-innovations are diffused within the field.

Conclusion The study suggests that potential institutional entrepreneurs in the policy process perform five different roles in relation to eco-innovations. They legitimize or delegitimize them, help to theorize them, spur development and eventually contribute to institutionalizing them.

17

The findings suggest the different mechanisms that affect the decision making regarding what eco-innovations to support as part of a political strategy. It points to the strong role of agricultural researchers as the experts deciding whether or not an ecoinnovation really will reduce GHG emissions or not. But it also points to the importance of understanding the different existing policy goals and existing policies as these affect whether a particular eco-innovation can be suggested. This supports the observation that institutional entrepreneurship often entails efforts at theorizing innovations and adapting them to available frames (cf. Greenwood, and Lawrence 2002). Whether an ecoinnovation can gain the support from policy depends on how well it corresponds to existing problems and political goals. The case also supports the notion that institutional entrepreneurship is a collective effort involving the combined efforts of different actors performing different functions (cf. Hardy and Maguire 2008). On the other hand some actors are left out of the process which entailed criticism supporting the observation that institutional entrepreneurship is often a conflicted line of action. Because of the importance of drawing on existing policy it seems that the results support the notion of a path dependency in policy making – it is important to align ecoinnovation support with already existing policy rather than to create entirely new policy tools.

[To be further developed]

Discussion Previous authors have called attention to the role of actors in institutionalizing and diffusing innovations in organizational fields (cf. Dacin, Goodstein, and Scott 2002). For

18

eco-innovations the role of policy makers are particularly important as market-pull for these types of innovations is inadequate (Rennings 2000). By stepping into the policy process the roles of these actors could better be explored.

[To be further developed]

19

References Battilana, J., Leca, B. and, E. Boxenbaum, (2009) “How actors change institutions: towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship.” The Academy of Management Annals: 65-107.

Bonnedahl, K.J., and, J. Eriksson (2011) “The role of discourse in the quest for low carbon practices: a case of standard development in the food sector” The European Management Journal, Vol. 23, issue 3, pp.165-180

Czarniawska, B. and, B. Joerges, (1996) „Travel of ideas‟ In B. Czarniawska & G. Sevon (ed.), Translating organizational change: (pp. 13–48). Berlin: de Gruyter.

Dacin, M. T., Goodstein J., and W.R. Scott (2002) Institutional theory and institutional change: Introduction to the special research forum. Academy of Management Journal, 45: pp. 45-57

DiMaggio, P., and, W. Powell, (1983) “The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism

and Collective Rationality in

Organizational

Fields”,

American

Sociological Review 48: pp. 147–60.

Engström R, Nilsson M, and G. Finnveden (2008) ”Which environmental problems get policy attention? Ex-amining agricultural sector policies in Sweden”. Environmental Impact Assessment Review. pp 241-255.

20

FAO (2007) Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome.

Garud, R., Hardy, C., and, S. Maguire, (2007) “Institutional Entrepreneurship as embedded agency: An introduction to the special issue”. Organization Studies, 28: pp. 1055–1077.

Greenwood, Royston, Suddaby, Roy and, C.R. Hinings, (2002) “Theorizing Change: The Role of Professional Associations in the Transformation of Institutionalized Fields”, Academy of Management Journal, 45(1), 58-80.

Greenwood, R., and R. Suddaby, (2006) “Institutional Entrepreneurship by Elite Firms in Mature Fields: the Big Five Accounting Firms”, Academy of Management Journal 49(1): pp. 27-48

Hardy, C. and S. Maguire, (2008) Institutional entrepreneurship In R. Greenwood, C. Oliver, K. Sahlin, and R. Suddaby (ed.), The Sage handbook of organizational institutionalism: (pp. 198–217). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage

Hellström, T. (2007) “Dimensions of environmentally sustainable innovation: the structure of eco-innovation concepts”. Sustainable Development, 15: 148-159.

IPCC (2007) Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change. B. Metz, O.R. Davidson, P.R. Bosch, R. Dave and L.A. Meyer (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

21

Jordbruksverket

[Swedish

Board

of

Agriculture],

(2008)

Minska

jordbrukets

miljöpåverkan - Del 1 Introduktion och några åtgärder/styrmedel. Rapport 2008:11. Jönköping, Sweden.

Jordbruksverket [Swedish Board of Agriculture], (2010a) Minskade växtnäringsförluster och växthusgasutsläpp till 2016 – förslag till handlingsprogram för jordbruket. Rapport 2010:10. Jönköping, Sweden.

Jordbruksverket [Swedish Board of Agriculture], (2010b) Åtgärder för minskade utsläpp. Rapport 2010:10 Appendix 1. Jönköping, Sweden

Jordbruksverket [Swedish Board of Agriculture], (2010c). Hur styr miljöersättningen för ekologisk produktion? – effekter på marknad och miljö. Rapport 2010:1. Jönköping.

Kemp, R. (1997) Environmental Policy and Technical Change: A Comparison of the Technological Impact of Policy Instruments, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, United Kingdom.

Latour B. (1986) „The powers of association‟. In J Law (ed.) Power, Action, and Belief, (pp. 264-280) London: Routledge & Kegan

Lawrence, T.B. (1999) “Institutional Strategy”, Journal of Management, 25(2), 161-188.

22

Lawrence, T.B., and N. Phillips, (2004) “From Moby Dick to Free Willy: Macro-cultural discourse

and

institutional

entrepreneurship

in

emerging

institutional

fields”,

Organization 11(5): 689–711.

Lounsbury, M., and, E.T. Crumley (2007) “New practice creation: An institutional perspective on innovation”. Organization Studies, 28(7), 993–1012.

Norberg-Bohm, V. (1999) ”Stimulating „green‟ technological innovation: an analysis of alternative policy mechanisms.” Policy Sciences 32: 13–38.

Porter, E. M., and, C. Van der Linde, (1995) “Towards a new conception of the environment–competitiveness relationship.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9: 97– 118.

Reay, T., and C.R Hinings, (2009) “Managing the Rivalry of Competing Institutional Logics”. Organization Studies 30 (06): 629-652).

Rennings, K. (2000) Redefining innovation – eco-innovation research and the contribution from ecological economics. Ecological Economics 32: 319–332.

Söderberg, C. (2005). “Much Ado about Nothing? Energy Forest Cultivation in Sweden: on Policy Coordination and EPI in a Multisectoral Issue”. Paper presented at the ISA RC

23

24 Conference, Double Standards and Simulation: Symbolism, Rhetoric and Irony in Eco-Politics [University of Bath, September 1-4, 2005]

Sonesson, U., Cederberg, C., Flysjö, A., and, B. Carlsson, (2008) Livscykelanalys (LCA) av svenska ägg (ver.2). SIK-rapport 783. Institutet för livsmedel och bioteknik. Göteborg.

Thornton, P.H., and W. Occasio, (1999) “Institutional logics and the historical contingency of power in organizations: Executive succession in the higher education publishing industry”, 1958-1990. American Journal of Sociology. 105 (3): 801-843.

Thornton, P., and W. Occasio, (2008) “Institutional Logics”. In R. Greenwood, Christine Oliver, Kerstin Sahlin and Roy Suddaby (eds.) The Sage Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism. London: Sage Publications Ltd. pp. 99-129

Yin, R. K. (2005) Case study research: Design & methods Thousand Oaks: Sage.

i

Reports from SBA dealing with GHG emissions as well as other environmental or agricultural issues produced outside the project were used along with extensive background material from trade journals and different newsletters collected to explore ongoing issues and debates within the Swedish agricultural sector. This data was used to build up an understanding of prevailing logics as well as the roles and positions of affiliated actors.

24