Regional innovation systems in an era of grand societal challenges: reorientation versus transformation

ABSTRACT

This editorial seeks to contribute to a critical rethinking of the regional innovation system (RIS) framework and to examine what kind of ‘reinvention’ of regional innovation policy is needed in the era of grand societal challenges. The concept of challenge-oriented regional innovation systems (CoRISs) is employed to cast light on how RISs can be reconfigured in response to societal challenges. Based on the articles in this issue, the editorial distinguishes between two routes into which CoRISs could be developed: RIS reorientation strategies versus RIS transformation strategies. The first strategy assumes that at least some place-specific problems that are related to grand societal challenges can be tackled by use of existing assets, actors and institutions in historically grown RISs. RIS transformation strategies go a step further. They emphasize disruption and the strategic creation of new RIS elements. These include the inclusion of new innovative actors and actor groups, the implementations of institutional change, and also the disruption of old network linkages and the establishment of new ones. The editorial also reflects on the uptake of the two strategies in different spatial contexts as regional preconditions and challenges vary, which may demand different strategies and solutions on the regional level.

KEYWORDS:

• RIS
• Challenge-oriented RIS (CoRIS)
• reorientation
• transformation
• societal challenges
• regional policy

Introduction

There are increasing demands that innovation policy should not only promote technological innovation for economic growth and competitiveness but should also result in enhanced capacities to tackle grand societal challenges such as climate change, the ageing society, health, digitalization or growing social and territorial inequalities. Yet it is still unclear, how regional innovation systems (RIS) – as a concept and as a policy approach – need to be modified to cope with these challenges. The RIS framework has been widely used in many regions, countries and at the EU level to inform place-based innovation policies, mainly focusing on enhancing firms’ and industries’ international competitiveness and growth. However, the need to rethink the role of RIS in transformative change and mission-oriented innovation policy has become more accentuated over the past years. A prime example is the EU initiative to foster green transitions and more inclusive development through Smart Specialization Strategies (McCann and Soete 2020).

Tödtling, Trippl and Desch (2021, in this issue) introduce the notion of challenge-oriented regional innovation systems (CoRISs) that embrace a broader understanding of innovation with regards to its purpose, sources, types and actors and considers the directionality of change to tackle societal challenges. The articles in this special issue yield insights into how CoRISs could be developed. More precisely, they cast light on two different routes in which regional innovation systems can be reconfigured in response to societal challenges: RIS reorientation versus RIS transformation (Trippl 2022). The first strategy is based on the assumption that at least some transformative changes in regional industries and wider socio-technical systems can build upon existing assets, actors and institutions of historically grown RIS (Bugge, Andersen, and Steen 2021, in this issue). Existing RIS (that are nested in larger systems) can be mobilized to develop innovative solutions to regional problems and needs that are related to grand societal challenges, such as the decarbonization of industries. Mobilizing inherited RIS structures (such as the industrial base, knowledge assets and institutional set-ups) and modifying historically grown assets (such as firm competencies) to address place-specific challenges and change elements of (regional) socio-technical systems lie at the heart of RIS reorientation strategies.

While reorientation strategies are about increasing the challenge orientation of existing RIS components and functions, RIS transformation strategies go a step further. They emphasize disruption and the strategic creation of new RIS elements. At their core are the inclusion of new innovative actors and actor groups, the disruption of old network linkages and the establishment of new ones, and the implementation of institutional change to foster more sustainable regional development. Creating (or importing) new assets and deconstructing old ones play a much more prominent role when compared to reorientation strategies. The latter – i.e. phasing out old, unsustainable RIS elements and practices – has thus far received limited attention in RIS studies. Destabilizing ‘the unsustainable’, undermining vested interests and long-established incentive structures (Kivimaa and Kern 2016) and ‘picking the losers’ (Braams et al. 2021) could be an arduous task (Trippl 2022) and may create intense conflicts in the region. More research is required to better understand how RISs could deal with such tensions.

In this editorial, we elaborate on and exemplify these two strategies (or routes) of RIS reconfiguration utilizing the insights of the papers that were published in the special issue. We also reflect upon their uptake in different spatial contexts. In doing so, we draw connections to the articles that are published in this special issue and highlight their contributions.

Setting the scene

The regional innovation system (RIS) framework has been widely adopted in many regions, countries and at the EU level to inform place-based policy approaches aiming at stimulating innovation-driven economic growth and enhancing the competitive strength of the corporate sector. Considering the climate crisis and other environmental and social problems, the goals of regional innovation policy need to be reassessed.

Arguably, the last years have witnessed a growing body of literature that has dealt with the rise of mission-oriented, challenge-driven and transformative innovation policies (Mazzucato 2018; Mazzucato, Kattel, and Ryan-Collins 2020; Schot and Steinmueller 2018; Diercks, Larsen, and Steward 2019). Rather than purely aiming at economic growth, the focus of those policies is on tackling grand societal challenges and far-reaching transformation processes of production and consumption systems. These approaches champion a broader understanding of innovation, are explicit about the directionality of change and propagate a new and enriched role of policy. However, it is vital to recognize that this literature lacks sensitivity and attention to context-specific factors that influence sustainability transitions (Binz et al. 2020) and that little is said about the role of the regional policy level in such transformation processes. Accordingly, the new policy approaches have received critique for advocating rather generic ‘place blind’ policies (Uyarra, Ribeiro, and Cale-Clough 2019).

It was only recently that scholarly contributions have begun to reflect upon the role of the regional policy level for tackling grand societal challenges (see, for instance, Coenen, Hansen, and Rekers 2015; Tödtling and Trippl 2018; Coenen and Morgan 2020; McCann and Soete 2020; Tödtling, Trippl, and Frangenheim 2020, 2021; Wanzenböck and Frenken 2020; Flanagan, Uyarra, and Wanzenböck 2022). This editorial contributes to these emerging debates by seeking to re-define the role of RIS and RIS strategies in the era of transformative and mission-oriented innovation. More precisely, we interrogate how the RIS framework could be applied to regional policy strategies for tackling place-specific problems that are related to grand societal challenges. We contribute with an analytical framework and empirical examples that underline (i) that regional preconditions to tackle place-specific problems related to grand societal challenges vary and (ii) that the challenges are of different type and complexity, which may demand different strategies and solutions on the regional level and also mobilization of relevant assets across different geographical and political levels. To this end, we draw on the articles submitted to this special issue to revisit and modify the RIS approach, which helps to assess two basic strategies (or routes), namely (i) RIS reorientation strategies and (ii) RIS transformation strategies (Trippl 2022).

In the next section, we elaborate on the core features of RIS reorientation and transformation strategies and unravel the types of innovation activity, processes that underpin both strategies. Section 3 zooms in on the issue of context, a topic that was also addressed in the articles. The final section concludes and identifies some key issues for future research.

Regional innovation systems in the era of grand societal challenges: reorientation or transformation?

The RIS framework is well established and has figured prominently in academic debates on regional innovation and growth since the 1990s. The framework was developed as an analytical tool to explore why some regions (and the industries they host) are more innovative than others. It was also used as a policy approach to create favourable conditions for regional innovation and growth (Asheim, Isaksen, and Trippl 2019). The idea is that public policy can – together with other stakeholders – create and adapt RIS, and also steer regional innovation systems into specific directions.

Reorientation

We argue that in some contexts, existing RISs or RISs that have undergone a reorientation can contribute to tackling major societal challenges without completely transforming themselves – they ‘simply’ reorientate and this has consequences for the types of innovations and asset modifications that are needed in this strategy. The ability of reoriented RISs to cope with societal challenges depends in particular on the mobilisation of actors, networks and institutional structures of established RISs and the identification and reuse of existing assets (Trippl 2022). This can help to solve some specific challenges, such as zero or low emissions (decarbonisation) from passenger and car ferries in Norway, as shown below. It might entail changes in products, services, production processes and value chains that firms often have the expertise to implement on their own or with the support of existing organizations in (and outside) a RIS. Such innovations are carried out by firms to achieve specific objectives, such as maintaining or enhancing competitiveness or setting up more environmentally friendly production processes. The latter is often the result of laws and regulations set at regional, national or international levels.

Articles in this special issue contribute with theoretical reflections and empirical examples that demonstrate both strengths and weaknesses of the reorientation strategy when it comes to tackling place-specific problem related to grand societal challenges. Innovations and industrial development that mostly occur within historically grown RIS structures and are undertaken by existing actors have a greater chance of leading to what Afewerki and Karlsen (2021, in this issue) refer to as just sustainable development than in cases where, for example, existing carbon-intensive industries, with possibly a significant number of jobs, are being phased out as part of a large-scale sustainable transition and transformation of RISs. Phase-out of carbon-intensive industries may hit some regions and some group of workers hard. ‘Policies that address societal challenges while creating economic uncertainty typically encounter strong popular resistance and low political feasibility’ (Bugge, Andersen, and Steen 2021, 2, in this issue). Rather, a balance between policy for sustainable transition and for industrial competitiveness may be important for creating legitimacy for policy instruments aimed at increased sustainability. A balance may be achieved if such policy approaches build on existing actors, assets and support structures in particular regions.

These arguments echo those by Afewerki and Karlsen (2021), based on their analysis of two cases of Norwegian regions with many jobs in equipment suppliers for the oil and gas industry, Afewerki and Karlsen argue that two types of policy should be implemented. First, long-term sustainability goals should be addressed through proactive policies that slowly foster the development of renewal energy sectors mainly through technology push instruments. Second, reactive policy should aim for short-term social and economic goals including to ensure (some) existing jobs in carbon-intensive industries, which contributes to raise social acceptance for the proactive policy for industrial restructuring among regions and people affected by the policy.

Yet, one might critically ask if reactive policies to maintain jobs in unsustainable sectors (even when combined with proactive transition policies) are ambitious enough given the challenges of our time. Radical innovations in production and consumption and more fundamental RIS changes, ‘which … require novel (re)configuration of actors, networks, institutions and practices (Hassink, Gong, and Herr 2021, 4, in this issue) seem to be required to tackle challenges that are not merely of a local or regional character (see below).

An empirical example of innovations for decarbonisation which was initially based on the existing RIS is the development, production and use of battery-electric car and passenger ferries in Western Norway (Bugge, Andersen, and Steen 2021). The existing RIS (that is nested in larger systems) has been mobilised to develop battery-electric ferries. The first battery-electric ferry started to operate in 2015. This has been followed by a maturing of the Norwegian battery electric (BE) technological segment, and public procurement led to the ordering of 70 battery-electric ferries from 2015 to 2020 (Bach et al. 2020, 8).

This development builds, in addition to the RIS, on a well-functioning, mainly national technological innovation system ‘where sub-divisions of international companies, research institutions, local ship-owners and yards […] often collaborate on technological development’ (Bach et al. 2020, 8). Several actors experiment to develop and improve solutions through laboratory testing, pilot studies on operating ships including dialogue with on-board personnel, and through experimentation with business models. Lobbying by established (incumbent) RIS actors in Western Norway and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) played an important and proactive role to influence political decisions. The decisions led to national public procurement rules that created market demands for electric ferries. The development of these builds on existing competence as the ‘competence base for diesel-electric systems is transferable to BE propulsion’ (Bach et al. 2020, 10). Thus, it is relevant to note that the development of battery-electric ferries in Western Norway takes place within a reoriented RIS. The Western Norwegian RIS utilizes pre-existing structures, such as the industrial base of a maritime production network and knowledge and institutional set-up, and modifies existing local assets, such as firm competencies, to develop and produce battery-electric ferries. In addition, the BE ferries take over transport from diesel ferries on existing ferry lines and are set into an existing system for the ownership and operation of ferries.

The situation is different when it comes to developing hydrogen solutions for ferries and other coastal maritime transport in Norway. This development cannot build on a strong existing knowledge base. Few actors are experimenting with the hydrogen technology and there is a lack of rules and regulations (Bach et al. 2020). This reveals a weaker developed technological and regional innovation system and greater need for transformation of the existing RIS.

To sum up, RIS reorientation strategies can contribute to cope with some types of societal challenges, such as demonstrated by the example of decarbonisation of ferry transport. This is achievable when established RIS actors are mobilised and existing assets are reused or recombined. The solutions generated by embarking on the reorientation route might fit into existing production and market systems and contribute to tackle specific societal challenges at the regional level (Table 1).

Table 1. Two types of RIS strategies for sustainability transitions.

	RIS reorientation strategies	RIS transformation strategies
Characteristics	Build on and reuse competences, actors, networks and institutions in existing RISs. Fit into existing production and market system	Include several new types of actors, networks and institutions. Require changes in production and market systems
Support for sustainable transition	Reusing & recombining existing assets	Creating (importing) new assets & destructing old assets
Policy strategies	Build on and adapt existing regional innovation policy for new sustainable goals	Create new policy for sustainable transitions

Transformation

Transformation of RISs is essential for major changes in regions’ industries and wider socio-technical systems, such as transitions towards a renewable energy regime. This will require technological innovations of a disruptive or radical type (Smith 2011), often developed elsewhere and adopted by firms and industries in the region. Radical innovations contribute to new socio-technical regimes through the development and diffusion of new generic technologies (like the microprocessor, which was developed in the 1970s) (Perez 2016). However, technological innovations are not sufficient. Regime changes entail wider societal changes (op. cit.). They may involve changes in firms, knowledge organisations, network constellations, policy tools, formal institutions, values, consumption patterns and infrastructure (Geels 2004; Schot and Steinmueller 2018). This directs attention to the creation of new assets in the region (or the importation of assets from outside the region) and they often require old asset destruction (Trippl et al. 2020), that is, exnovation efforts understood as the deliberate destabilization and phasing out of unsustainable practices (Kivimaa and Kern 2016; Heyen, Hermwille, and Wehnert 2017). RIS transformation strategies benefit from the participation from new actor groups, such as non-governmental organisations, users and citizens (Tödtling, Trippl, and Desch 2021).

While change from fossil to battery-electric ferries, as described above, can take place mostly within existing innovation systems, it is different when the transport system as a whole is to be transformed. This may include reducing the need for transport, for example through digitalisation and a change in modes of working (such as more home office), changes in the settlement structure, increased use of public transport and carpooling. Such developments thus require more than technological changes in the corporate sector. Changes at different levels – including institutional and infrastructural innovation, mental models, consumption behaviour, values, governance modes etc. – are needed (Geels 2004; Schot and Steinmueller 2018).

Thus, arguments for the transformation of RIS are found in mission-oriented and transformative innovation policy that focus on major scientific, technological, and societal breakthroughs and transformative shifts in systems of production and consumption (Tödtling, Trippl, and Desch 2021). Breakthroughs and transformative shifts are studied through theoretical constructions of technological innovation systems and the Multi-Level Perspective (MLP).

Sustainability transitions include long-term, multi-dimensional and fundamental transformations of large socio-technical systems (e.g. in energy and transport) towards more environmental sustainable modes of production and consumption (Markard, Raven, and Truffer 2012). Such transitions are deemed necessary to address sustainable challenges. These approaches mainly neglect the regional level, but offer ideas that are helpful when discussing RIS transformation policies (Tödtling, Trippl, and Desch 2021).

Sustainable transitions take place when new radical technologies replace older technologies. The new technology develops within technological innovation systems conceptualized as ‘a set of networks of actors and institutions that jointly interact in a specific technological field and contribute to the generation, diffusion and utilization of variants of a new technology and/or a new product’ (Markard and Truffer 2008, 611). They challenge established socio-technical regimes, which include joint rules and norms among key actors that support existing industries. In well-established innovation systems and regimes only innovations that accord with key knowledge, technology, ‘rules of the game’ and so on are supported. That is, the development follows a technological path belonging to the regime (Smith 2011).

Socio-technical regimes may then act as barriers to radical innovations. Such innovations are often quite incomplete and not really competitive against existing solutions when launched. This means that totally new technology may need shielding in the development and introduction phase (Geels 2019). This consists of niches where radical innovations may develop undisturbed through trial and error by researchers, entrepreneurs, activists and ‘outsiders’. A RIS may constitute a shielding niche for technological innovations (Martin 2020). The ‘niche innovations’ are constantly improving, may develop a dominant design and a support structure before they are introduced in a competitive market. Radical and generic innovations that become widely used may lead to transformations of socio-technical regimes.

The literature on technological innovation systems and the MLP perspective have inspired ideas for RIS transformation to better address grand societal challenges. Jeannerat and Crevoisier (2022, in this issue) interpret transformative regional innovation policy as a means to transform industries to contribute to local sustainable living conditions, and as a means to promote, manage and operate modes of production, consumption and living that help tackling societal challenges. This points to the nexus between RIS transformation strategies and alternative regional development agendas that put place-specific needs and problems into the centre (Morgan and Sabel 2019; MacKinnon et al. 2022). The article by Tödtling, Trippl, and Desch (2021) provides several insights into the development of CoRISs by taking the transformation route and resembles the type of changes mentioned by Jeannerat, and Crevoisier (2022). The focus is on a broader understanding of innovation activity with regards to its purpose, participants, and knowledge sources, and on the directionality of change to address societal challenges. Even if CoRISs operate in specific regions, they are linked to other scales by flows of knowledge and other assets, and by regulations and policies.

The governance of the transformation route is crucial. A bottom-up governance strategy for regional innovation policy to tackle grand societal challenges is brought to the fore in the article by Bours, Wanzenböck and Frenken (2021, in this issue). The authors point to the advantages of what they refer to as ‘small wins’, an approach that includes many small changes in practice and routines and values implemented by various actors, including users and interest groups, who use existing resources. The activities can lead to innovations of a technological, social and economic nature at the local or regional level. ‘A small wins strategy (…) can potentially transform the existing system configuration (and) (…) can contribute to more challenge-oriented regional innovation systems’ (Bours, Wanzenböck, and Frenken 2021, 2). The changes do not occur in protected niches because the innovations are so small that they do not threaten established actors in the prevailing socio-technical regime. However, to have a major effect on societal changes, small wins must be supported by larger visions of change and by political instruments. Implementing of coordinated initiatives demands the prioritizing of goals and interventions among regional stakeholders. Larrea and Karlsen (2021, in this issue) propose action research think tanks as one instrument to co-generate new knowledge and challenge-oriented innovation policy among researchers and policy-makers, and also with other regional actors. Shared vision building though broad participation of many actor groups is seen as important. These might include the usual RIS actors (firms, knowledge organisations, and politicians and policy-makers), but – equally if not more importantly – also social groups, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), users and public sector organisations.

The context of RIS reconfiguration

The RIS reorientation and transformation strategies are ideal-types (Trippl 2022). The strategies can be understood as the two ends of a continuum, along which various combinations of reorientation and transformation activities are possible. The actual combination of the strategies builds amongst others on (i) the context and the history of a region and on (ii) how the grand societal challenges are identified at the regional level, for example as being mainly a local problem (e.g. polluting industrial activity) or whether they are considered as more general ‘system wide’ challenges.

Thus, the route a RIS takes – reorientation, transformation or combinations – will always depend on the pre-conditions and context as well as actor networks and coalitions. Such pre-conditions need to be considered at different spatial scales, including the national scale as Casula (2022, in this issue) highlights. The paper by Rizzo et al. (2022, in this issue) illustrates how important the pre-existing context is, in which policy change takes place. Illustrating the case of post-disaster policymaking in the time after the Central Italy earthquake in 2016, the authors show that a crisis event such as a natural disaster does not per se entice radical change in terms of sustainable regional development. Rather, existing policy patterns and paths (and with that also issues of path dependence and lock-in) shape the transformation process.

Regarding preconditions, regions with a limited endowment of relevant assets typically have comparatively little knowledge and expertise in industry, in knowledge organisations and in regional authorities when it comes to supporting, for example, sustainable restructuring. Sometimes these regions also have few organisations and local experts or lay persons that are engaged in tackling regional-specific problems related to societal challenges. The two Norwegian oil dependent regions studied by Afewerki and Karlsen (2021) seem to fall into this category. Regions with a large stock of relevant assets for tackling place-specific problems have more relevant RIS elements and, for example, they possess routines and traditions in the design of regionally adapted policy instruments. The Basque Country (Spain) has long experience with the design of regional tailored policy through collaboration between politicians and researchers and can thus be well equipped also for the design of policy for grand societal challenges (Larrea and Karlsen 2021, in this issue).

Another dimension that affects the ability of a region to cope with grand societal challenges is related to the question at what level the place-specific challenges are identified. This does not mean that the challenges are only related to industrial activity, e.g. to manufacturing industry with large greenhouse gas emissions, but polluting industrial activity may be a clearly identified challenge that regional actors seek to solve. Emissions from fossil ferries in Western Norway are such a challenge, which was largely tackled by a RIS, supported by some national policy instruments and R&D milieus, with relevant assets for the development of battery-electric ferries (Bugge, Andersen, and Steen 2021). When societal challenges are identified as problems related to several elements in the RIS and to how key societal sectors, as energy systems, are organized, transformation of the RIS itself may also be necessary. The transition to more renewable energy in Schleswig-Holstein in Germany may be one example of identification of a problem area beyond one specific industrial sector (Hassink, Gong, and Herr 2021).

The combination of regional preconditions and place-specific problems related to grand societal challenges suggests which RIS reconfiguration is most relevant. A well-defined problem area, for example related to a particular polluting industrial activity, and favourable regional conditions to help solving the problem points to the RIS reorientation strategy. A more complex problem area that includes larger sections of society, on the other hand, points towards RIS transformation strategies, especially when key assets to help solving societal challenges are more or less lacking. Particularly the RIS transformation strategy needs to build on deeper changes in terms of culture, vision, etc. As Cooke and Nunes (2021, in this issue) outline for the tourism industry, transformative change in growth-driven industries needs to be based on imagery and circuitry particularly in times of great challenges (COVID-19, continued loss of biodiversity, etc.). As their example of the city of Tomar, a medium-sized town about 100 km north-east of Lisbon, shows, local communities take on the challenge to refit urban spaces and find innovative solutions to existing infrastructures and abandoned buildings.

Conclusions, outlook and future research agenda

Over the past years, the RIS approach has served as a major inspiration for placed-based policies aiming to boost innovation-driven economic growth and to enhance the international competitiveness of the firm sector. This editorial seeks to contribute to a critical rethinking of the RIS framework and to examine what kind of ‘reinvention’ of regional innovation policy is needed in the era of grand societal challenges. We develop a framework that helps to distinguish between RIS reorientation strategies and RIS transformation strategies (Trippl 2022).

Given the urgency to accelerate (sustainability) transitions, we contend that RIS reorientation endeavours, although having some advantages of bringing down low-hanging fruits, may not suffice. Considering the urgency to tackle challenges such as the climate crisis, the loss of biodiversity, and growing social and spatial inequalities, the adoption of RIS transformation strategies seems to be vital. The articles in this special issue have brought to the surface several dimensions of such strategies such as the involvement of new actors, the promotion of policy mixes that support co-innovation, entrepreneurship, sensemaking and visioning, action research, among others.

Since RIS transformation strategies are still in their infancy, much more conceptual and empirical research is required to understand why some regions succeed in embarking on a transformation route while others fail. Particularly insightful would be analyses that address the issue of benefits and losses related to RIS transformation. Similarly, it would be interesting to explore to what extent RIS reorientation and RIS transformation strategies co-exist, what effects are produced by their co-existence and whether or not reorientation strategies can be changed into transformation strategies, and by whom.

A core issue relates to the question of how to initiate changes at the paradigm level, that is, how to ‘intervene’ into the underlying values, goals, and world views of actors that shape the direction of system reconfiguration. Scholarly work on leverage points (Meadows 1999; Abson et al. 2017) could provide a useful inroad here. Sustainability transformations require deep changes. Changes in core beliefs and values are related to other changes in socio-technical regimes, such as the development of new knowledge and skills, rules and regulations and infrastructure. Values and beliefs go very deep but are the underlying foundation of societal development. Merely creating awareness and knowledge of the need to change does not lead to change itself. Yet, as we have seen in the articles on RIS transformation, change needs to go beyond solely adapting existing assets, actor constellations and so on. For a true transition towards sustainability we also need third-order change, in which mental models are reframed and practices are relearned. Davelaar (2021) talks about ‘doing things better; doing better things and, seeing things differently’ (731). What does that mean for regional innovation policy? We need to change our mental models about what constitutes economic success, competitiveness, innovativeness, growth etc. along the lines that Martin (2021) recently suggested in terms of not only building back better but building forward better.

As noted above, developing challenge-oriented RIS by taking the transformation route imply to reassess the ‘points of departure’ for policy initiatives. The conventional focus on regions’ endowments of knowledge and other assets – which are widely regarded as basis for determining the innovation and diversification potentials of places – need to be complemented by a focus on place-specific economic, social and ecological problems and needs (Tödtling, Trippl, and Desch 2021; MacKinnon et al. 2022). Recent work suggests that there is not only a geography of innovation (solutions) but also a geography of problems with the latter being rather different compared to the former (Calignano and Trippl 2020; Cappellano et al. 2021; Flanagan, Uyarra, and Wanzenböck 2022). This is not to deny that many grand societal challenges are global in nature. However, it is crucial to recognise that different regions have different exposures to environmental and societal problems. The challenges faced by different places differ. Place-specific problems and needs could constitute a source of innovation, green path development and diversification. Both asset endowments and problem endowments require consideration as points of departure for policy strategies.

This has also implications for RIS typologies that are widely used in research and practice. Long-established typologies pay attention to the production structure of RIS (i.e. the firm sector, the industrial structures, and the organizational and institutional configurations supporting these). A well-known typology by Isaksen and Trippl (2016) for example takes the degree of thickness and specialisation of the production structures as a point of departure and distinguishes between thin RIS, thick and specialized RIS, and thick and diversified RIS. Arguably, such typologies reflect the uneven distribution of economic opportunities and (conventional) innovation activities across regions (Isaksen and Trippl 2016) and help to identify the predominant failure modes of (different types) of RISs (Tödtling and Trippl 2005; Isaksen and Trippl 2016). Focusing on place-specific challenges or problems requires us to revisit those typologies and possibly develop new ones. Not only the production structure but also place-specific needs and challenges need to be factored into the development of such novel typologies.

Another important issue for future research is to come to grips with the regional capacities – and related agencies – that are needed to implement RIS transformation strategies. Drawing on Hölscher, Frantzeskaki, and Loorbach (2019), one could distinguish between four main forms, including (i) stewarding capacity (identification of place-specific challenges, needs and vulnerabilities and the ‘framing’ of problems); (ii) unlocking capacity (phasing out unsustainable practices); (iii) transformative capacity (generation, diffusion and embedding of innovation) and (iv) orchestrating capacity (coordination and intermediation) (see also Trippl 2022). The question of how such capacities are built-up in different spatial contexts is a key issue for future research.

In sum, the ten articles provide an excellent overview of the various strategies regions use to adapt to and tackle societal challenges. Our goals were to highlight cutting-edge research around the question how regional innovation policies address grand challenges and to present important findings from scholars in diverse fields. In this sense, the articles advance our understanding of the role of the regional perspective in addressing challenges that are interrelated at the global scale.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).