Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

www.elsevier.com/locate/futures

Planning of strategic innovation aimed at

environmental sustainability: actor-networks,
scenario acceptance and backcasting analysis
within a polymeric coating chain
P.J. Partidario a,∗, Ph.J. Vergragt b
a
Department of Materials and Production Technologies, INETI, Estrada Paço do Lumiar 22,
1649-038 Lisboa, Portugal
b
TUDelft, Faculty OCP, Section Design for Sustainability, Jaffalaan 9, NL-2628 BX Delft,
Netherlands

Abstract

This paper addresses a new way of influencing and stimulating technological innovations
towards sustainability. Sustainability is operationalised as function fulfilment with a factor of
20 reduction on environmental burden over the entire lifecycle. The method, which is derived
from the earlier developed sustainable technological development (STD) and SusHouse
methods, includes future visioning together with stakeholder participation, followed by action
planning. Future visioning has been carried out in workshops with all relevant stakeholders;
action planning is also performed in workshops. As a case study a polymeric coatings chain
in the Netherlands and in Portugal, has been chosen. Initially data has been gathered about
production, environmental aspects, and technological innovations and applications; later inter-
views with stakeholders have been carried out followed by the visioning and action planning
workshops. The paper shows that the methodology works in a situation in which innovative
activity is already under way, identifying new and unexpected ways of making the polymeric
coatings chain more sustainable. It discusses further implementation of new ideas of func-
tion fulfilment.
 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: paulo.partidario@ineti.pt (P.J. Partidario); ph.j.vergragt@io.tudelft.nl. (Ph.J.
Vergragt).

0016-3287/02/$ - see front matter.  2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 0 1 6 - 3 2 8 7 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 3 0 - 7
842 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

1. Introduction

In a system approach towards sustainability, a dynamic balance should be kept

between ecological and socio-economic conditions, i.e. to take into account the needs
of the present generation without adversely affecting the opportunities for develop-
ment of subsequent generations [1,2]. While the regulatory process is becoming more
stringent, non-renewable resources are still being depleted and environmental pol-
lution is increasing. Therefore, shifts in technological systems are needed. Kemp
reviewed relevant factors that hinder changing processes in existing technological
systems [3]. Still, transitions require directions and conditions for acceptance [4]
and particularly involving social management [5]. More strategic planning is needed
towards a higher level of sustainable decisions and actions and it could be questioned
how those directions can be generated in a structured way, so that transitions can
be more easily planned and managed. To get more insight to solutions to this problem
in an industrial context, a polymeric coatings chain is used as a case-study [6].
Through evolutionary patterns, product and process innovations in the paint and
coatings industry are being driven primarily by regulation, product performance, mar-
ket pressure and, increasingly, by public opinion. The relationships between environ-
mental pressure and technological innovation can be conceptualised by evolutionary
economics in which industry’s innovation activity follows trajectories of technologi-
cal development [7]. In the particular case of the polymeric coatings industry, related
environmental issues are managed mainly in an incremental way, particularly because
it involves a scale-intensive sector [8]. However, it is crucial that products and pro-
cesses are designed to include more eco-efficient patterns (resources, emissions and
waste management) developing into significantly lower environmental impacts. This
perspective regards in particular radical innovation, based on technology shifts within
functions (same system concept, but improved performance of the same function)
and systems (changing system concept/design).
Although the future is not predictable, with decision-taking we are contributing
to its shape, so it may be assumed as an alternative way to allow systems to evolve
that its evolution might be steered. This strategy, to steer the evolution of a system
assuming environmental sustainability as a main driving force, stimulates us to focus
on long-term eco-efficiency improvements e.g. achieving a factor of 20 in 2050 [9].
Scenario planning may be used for such a purpose. Depending on the precise
application, an important feature of scenarios is to offer a set of flexible future visions
and the events leading there. Scenario planning has a wide typology available [10],
based on how to establish a relationship between a scenario, the reality, and the
values that drive definition of goals and means. However, aiming to stimulate the
debate and to facilitate conversation on long-term changes, subsequent related prob-
lem definitions do not have an explicit and tangible influence on current economic
activities yet. Also, required improvements may not fit current lifestyles (i.e. cultural
and structural conditions for implementation are most probably still absent). As Cal-
lon [11] has shown, for each technological innovation, there are changes in the social
context within which the innovation is applied, i.e. when designing a new transpor-
tation option, it is also necessary to design its context of use. Besides the need for
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 843

social acceptance of those changes, companies cannot afford them in a drastic way,
as they involve a very high business risk (e.g. restricted markets, a restricted knowl-
edge base, loss of product quality performance, low return on investment). Therefore,
scenarios may offer narrative forms (steps, actions and their articulation) to describe
a plurality of hypothesis, which frame the desired picture of evolution. That overall
picture, however, has to be bridged to the current situation, so ‘backcasting’ analysis
[9,12] was chosen for that purpose, assuming a normative approach, where a set of
desirable future outcomes are defined beforehand, and their feasibility worked-out
based on the implementation of short-term actions. A main research question could
then be “What strategic changes should be assumed and which conditions should be
fulfilled in a specific system in a pre-defined long-term range of time, in order to
steer short-term steps towards more sustainable paths?”
The main goal of this research is to design and test a methodology to support new
innovation networks and more sustainable industrial products and processes, taking
the polymeric coating of cars as a case-study. New problem definitions, within a
more environmentally sustainable production and consumption system of coatings,
will certainly offer key elements in the build-up of new innovation networks and
technological trajectories.
It is important, therefore, to understand the conditions that will enable and support
long-term innovations. This is necessary in order to:

1. Stimulate the role of current/future social networks to overcome this unstruc-

tured problem;
2. Clarify subsequent uncertainties, values, knowledge, information needs, in order
to respond to interim pathways, that may lead to common platforms of support;
and
3. Identify key actors and build their, and other stakeholders, commitment.

Within this particular product chain, this paper describes recent findings on the
construction and evaluation of scenarios addressing function and system innovation
with stakeholder involvement, regarding in particular: (i) clustered solution direc-
tions, derived from filtered ideas previously produced on designed creativity work-
shops, to work as platforms for strategic information and dialogue among key stake-
holders; (ii) a scenario building and evaluation process.

2. Method

The current methodology draws from experience within the Dutch sustainable
technology development (STD) program [13] and EU SusHouse project [14,15]. The
uncertainty and complexity of the innovation process, when addressing more sus-
tainable goals within industrial activities, requires a strategic problem orientation and
the development of working methodologies. The polymeric coatings chain used as
a case study focuses in particular on surface protection of cars (OEM; refinishing)
within two different national innovation systems (NL; PT). There is a primary net-
844 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

work having the following chain elements: the production of raw materials and
resources, the paint manufacturing, distribution, use/consumption, and end-of-life
processing (waste management). Both countries currently have: (i) A paint industry
including eight paint producers operating in the car (re)painting market segment, and
(ii) automotive painting activities (four car manufacturers). This focus is justified by
the economical and environmental relevancy of both industrial branches and their
relationships within current supply chains.
In order to achieve drastic changes in production and consumption patterns, it is
desirable to generate new ideas and creative solutions using an interactivity based
process of social networking. Interactive construction of scenarios, as practised in
this research, is derived from that approach. Following a step-by-step iteration pro-
cess between development levels and evaluation levels, towards practicable technical
options, all iterations are worked out in an interactive way involving the identification
and enrolment of key stakeholders from different societal groups (industry, S&T
units, government, consumers). Looking ahead to the build up of a consistent long-
term view based on the cooperation and consensus between key stakeholders, and
at networks developed around problem definitions, it thus required first, the identifi-
cation and enrolment of experts and chain stakeholders in both countries. Meetings
and interviews were held to discuss current environmental problems, as well as future
eco-efficiency requirements and mid/long-term innovation issues. Running a ques-
tionnaire within the coating and resins producers enabled us to get more insight into
the present situation and current industrial approaches on environment and tech-
nology, as well as expectations about trends. Later, to enhance creativity within
problem solving, two creative workshops were performed as an interactive platform
for sharing strategic information, for brainstorming and dialogue. In each workshop,
the overall group was not homogeneous, thus, including a wide range of mental
frameworks and values, offering opportunity for societal learning processes [16].
Having a normative orientation i.e. the need for high levels of eco-efficiency to fulfil
SD requirements, the first round of workshops (1st WS) included different levels of
brainstorming in order to get social and technical input, and not just an
expected/desired acceptance behaviour, considering the different perspectives in the
chain and the build-up of shared goals and desires. This process enabled the gener-
ation of filtered ideas that were used afterwards in scenario building. Scenarios have
a key role in a broad design process. They consisted of narrative forms sketching
solutions from needs, as future products/services proposals within a backcasting
analysis from the year 2050 to the present.
The assessment of scenarios was performed using an abridged tri-dimensional
method, as described by Partidário and Vergragt [17]. This approach was developed
on the basis of a matrix method adapted from Graedel [18], plus assuming evaluation
of sustainability on the basis of a set of three assessment dimensions: environmental,
economic, and societal. Impacts were assessed through a set of pre-selected indicators
distributed in five broad categories, that encompass main stages of the product lifecy-
cle. This method uses expert judgement drawn from the integrated chain, providing
a relative numerical end point. It is supported by a numerical scale of relative judge-
ment, supporting the building of an overall rating (0–100%) to measure expected
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 845

improvements, enabling direct comparisons among related rated systems. It aims to

give insight into the strong and weak points of each scenario, and possible improve-
ment directions. On the other hand, it avoids confidential information disclosure to
external sources, and overspending resources, when compared with conventional
LCA.
Scenario acceptance was first pre-tested through expert interviews, and then dis-
cussion was broadened to check their coherence, credibility, acceptance and also to
fine-tune them. So a validation process, where both old and new actors were brought
together, was performed through a 2nd workshop series (2nd WS), anticipating the
identification of shared solution directions and complementary effects. Stakeholder
awareness, and networking between key actors, are key issues in enhancing creativity
within more environmentally sustainable production and consumption patterns. It is
also assumed, that to progress towards overall eco-efficiency levels of a factor of
20 in the long-term, and due to a co-evolution pattern of current technological, struc-
tural and cultural conditions, breakthrough innovations are required where the sub-
sequent learning curves need a ‘protective environment’ throughout their first stages.
Inspired by the SusHouse project [14], this process included two basic stages: The
identification of necessary changes to formulate action plans (Bridging Gaps I-BGI);
and the characterisation of conditions for implementation, moving backwards from
2050 (BG II). During BGI, stakeholders (old and new to the process) were invited
to react to those scenarios in order to check/measure their credibility within the
different groups (different ideas, opinions and value scales), and to fine-tune them
iteratively if necessary. This feed-back step is of key importance in scenario building,
though it is unlikely to integrate all the creative ideas and values that were generated,
in particular during the 1st WS. This validation step enables us to identify which
(f)actors are relevant to make each scenario attractive, including conditions for each
key actor/stakeholder groups’ acceptance. The aim is to identify opportunities,
short/mid-term technical steps and conditions/barriers for implementation action that
can lead specific co-operation between stakeholders to concrete projects. During
BGII, back-casting is performed after scenarios evaluation through the following
methodological steps: (a) to look backwards, from the proposed normative scenario,
modulating/regulating the feed-back of stakeholders; (b) to identify gaps in needs-
fulfilment and subsequent innovative sustainable trajectories in a context of complex
social changing process; and (c) to fine-tune the design process focusing on
defining/formulating concrete outcomes, and stepwise short/mid-term actions within
an activity agenda, to contribute to the desired needs-fulfilment within function and
system innovation.

3. Results

3.1. The paint chain and main environmental impacts

The boundaries of the paint chain under research, as well as the identification of
key stakeholders, were characterised in Partidário and Vergragt [6]. The involvement
846 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

of stakeholders enabled us to look into research objectives, attractiveness and feasi-

bility conditions from different viewpoints in the product chain, then to prepare to
broaden both the design process and its subsequent validation in the next working
step. As structures determine actions, and as rules and subsequent behaviours are
followed by new actions [19], a particular attention has been given to different target
groups, and to the interaction between those stakeholders having different scales of
values and therefore different kinds and levels of involvement. Although several
actors are playing a key role within this global innovative process, more attention was
paid to: government, industry (including the branch association and the employers
federation), the applicators/consumers and R&D Institutions, which have to co-oper-
ate in a very tight setting. The degree of responsibility, for each, is different in the
long-term and short-term. Due to the technical content required within scenario build-
ing, a specific focus was given on the paint production, and on industrial consumption
in the automotive industry.
In the paint industry (1998) about 24 million tons of paint were consumed in the
world [20], of which 28% was on the North American continent, followed by Europe
(27%) and Japan (8%). Although consumption in more industrialised countries has
been stagnating in recent years, emerging economies will exhibit paint consumption
growth rates in proportion to their overall economic growth. Estimated growth of
paint technologies, particularly in Europe, exhibits an interesting shift with low solids
solvent-based paints having a sharp declining trend since 1990 [21]. On the other
hand, high solids, waterborne, reactive systems (e.g. 2-component products), radi-
ation cured, and powder coatings are expected to keep their growth. However, despite
the increasing use of powder and waterborne coatings, environmental problems per-
sist and emissions in absolute terms have remained practically constant in recent
years. In fact, to achieve a sustainable breakthrough it has to not only be competitive
compared to other coating technologies but also include eco-efficiency factors like
the use of material resources and primary energy consumption.
The automotive industry is the largest industry in the world, and a powerful stake-
holder in the paint chain. There is an estimate of 523 million cars on Earth, and it
is expected to achieve about 1 billion units by 2020–2030 [22]. Due to current cuts
in production costs, and market saturation in the industrialised countries, the major
global automotive companies are expanding into emerging economies. In fact, 85%
of direct foreign investment in Asia, East/Central Europe, and Latin America comes
from European, Japanese, USA and South Korean car manufacturers. The trend in the
car chain has few suppliers providing systems or modules, instead of many suppliers
furnishing components. Thus for car manufacturers, this means a transfer of responsi-
bility and change of focus, obtaining services on a global scale.
The main environmental impacts identified in the polymeric coating production are
described in Partidário and Vergragt [6], having been extended to the product chain.
Contrasting with the small amount of paint used on an average car (4–5 l), which
after application accounts for only about 3–4% of the overall cost of a new car, the
painting function in car manufacturing is recognised to consume disproportionate
energy. Depending on car size, it is ca 16% of the total primary energy consumed
in the overall car production process [23]. It also produces considerable pollution
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 847

levels e.g. solvent emissions often exceed 10 kg per car. This situation is still more
absurd if we take into account that: (i) a paint facility within a new automotive
production plant, accounts for more than a third of the overall plant costs [24]; (ii)
further down the product chain, for individual mobility, there is an inefficient use
of privately owned cars in western societies-cars in NL are used daily only for about
72 min on average (comparatively, ca 180 min in PT), therefore not having an exten-
sive use, and occupying a lot of space on highways and in parking places which are
becoming increasingly scarce in crowded urban and suburban places [25].

3.2. Scenario building and assessment

Clustered solution directions were derived from filtered ideas, which resulted from
a multi-actor interactive and iterative process (creativity workshops, interviews).
Actors enrolled in this process consisted of: the coating industry, resin industry,
material suppliers, car industry, university, independent research (incl. vegetable oil
research), government (environment; economy), users/consumers, and branch associ-
ations.
Those clustered solution directions were input starting points to develop three
long-term oriented scenarios (Table 1): ‘SusCoats’ (environmental sustainability of
paints and coatings), ‘EverLasting Surfaces’ (no polymeric coatings at all), and
‘Going Incrementally’ (business as usual).
They describe general atmospheres of future images, each one focusing on a set of
changes including related products and services, that together enable us to approach a
more sustainable production and consumption of coatings within the chain under
focus.
Taking each long-term scenario as a starting point, and moving backwards from
2050, three interim leap-frog jumps were also performed, though not fully rep-
resented here due to length limitations. They were built as coherent sketches about
the future and, in particular, about the role the paint chain is expected to play in it,
contributing to a framework on promising system/function design strategies. They
may also contribute niches having long-term potential to develop into key useful
innovative technologies, products and more efficient and economic practices.
Thinking ahead to the discussion and evaluation of scenarios within the 2nd WS,
new insight about each scenario was obtained through an environmental, social and
economic assessment process. Based on main assessment dimensions of life cycle
approach, results were obtained as represented in Fig. 1(a–d), considering the case
of a polymeric coating applied to generic average cars, as a functional unit. Scenario
0 (Fig. 1d) was introduced, representing the current situation.
Taking for instance the environmental, social and economic assessments of the
current situation, it enabled a comparative analysis of the relative relevance of the
different life cycle stages on the specified assessment dimension (Fig. 2). That analy-
sis was also performed to compare similar stages between scenarios. In each axis,
the difference to full scale reflects the opportunity to perform new eco-efficiency
improvements. If a comparative assessment is performed stressing a specific environ-
mental indicator throughout a lifecycle stage, it is also possible to compare eco-
848 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

Table 1
Main characteristics of Scenarios (1/2)

Sc1 ‘SusCoats’ scenario: core idea focus on the environmental sustainability of polymeric coatings for
industrial products (e.g. cars), and on its functions as protection, aesthetics and/ or information
carriers. Main highlights are as follows: (i) breakthroughs are assumed; (ii) highly consumer oriented
production; (iii) sustainable production and consumption of coatings; (iv) full recyclability of coatings
(e.g. foil systems); (v) fitness for purpose; (vi) product–service integration; (vii) reducing surface
coating outside the chain; (viii) changes on ownership concept and on consumption patterns. Insights
for the period from year 2050–2025: Highly customised services context, depending largely from
internet with a fourfold effect: the product life-cycle shortened; production and liabilities costs
reduced; quick access to information (decision-taking); one-to-one marketing. In the automotive
sector, cars are fully recyclable, and manufacturing and assembly processes have an higher level of
integration within product chain. Transportation functions are service integrated and sold instead of
cars. Car producers manage the all product life-cycle. In polymeric coatings industry, car coatings life
time is designed to adjust to an easier application/ repair, and the changing values outside the
production chain, regarding product ownership and use, resulted in a deep shift from individual car
use to public/shared transportation and non-polluting alternatives. Function and product developments
enabled to achieve factor 20 in eco-efficiency (95% reduction, referred to 1998 levels). Reductions
focused on components, structure, and system levels. Modifications on the coating life cycle are
ecodesign based, from raw material supply (from C to Si based resins) to the coat end-of-life
processing (recycling separately from the metal phase).
Sc2 ‘EverLasting Surfaces’ scenario: core idea focus on the environmentally sustainable fitness for
the purpose of surfaces regarding industrial products (e.g. cars), with minimum needs (no polymeric
coatings at all). Main highlights are as follows: (i) breakthroughs are assumed; (ii) highly consumer
oriented production; (iii) the minimalist fully recyclable metallic car; (iv) the plastic car 100%
recyclable with flexible colouring; (v) highly complementary intermodal transportation; (vi) the city
without cars; (vii) changes on ownership concept and on consumption patterns. Insights for the period
from year 2050–2025: main context is a de-materialised society, highly internet based and new
product-system requirements defining emerging market niches. There is a functional orientation near
the consumer, instead of a delivered product. In-built energy and material efficiency in products are
important items throughout product lifecycle. Car producers control car life cycle (100% recyclable,
highly customised, based on metal/non-metal structures on the chassis and body, being not painted at
all, but coloured with pigmented thermoplastic panels easily removable/ replaceable), and have a
business portfolio, where a hard product orientation is increasingly being replaced by transportation
services. Transportation is based on cars being leased or rented; taxis (individually, shared) and multi-
modal public transport systems. The pattern of demand from car consumers looks for comfort, and to
the easiest way to move from one place to another. Manufacturing have a higher level of integration
with suppliers. Main existing strategies are the following: (a) the improved metallic car with
minimum needs and no paints necessary (assumed a life-cycle duration of 8–10 y); (b) the plastic car
based on advanced polymer application and built-in aesthetics; (c) the city without cars as an
alternative for new transportation systems and reduction of traffic/space congestion. Factor 20
improvements on ecoefficiency were achieved (95% reduction, referred to 1998 levels).
(continued on next page)

efficiency oriented improvements already implemented (or expected on Scenarios 1,

2 and 3) on the basis of a full score in each column, and its relevance for each stage.
3.3. Scenario validation and implementation
Proposed scenarios previously tested during expert interviews (paint industry; sub-
strate manufacturers) introduced to this workshop a variety of ideas to stimulate
discussion between the different parties.
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 849

Table 1 (continued)

Sc3 ‘Going incrementally ... as usual !’ scenario: is trend following (business as usual), defining a
base-line system where improvements addressing to industrial products (e.g. cars) are being achieved
just by incremental innovation. Thus, there is no room for radical innovation. Main highlights are as
follows: (i) stepwise incremental changes are assumed; (ii) increasing mass production; (iii) enhancing
SHE in coatings production; (iv) pollution reduction at the source; (v) increasing ecoefficiency in
coatings production through the selection of low impact materials, and lower intensity on material/
energy content on products; (vi) introducing fitness for purpose; (vii) reduced impacts during use;
(viii) optimisation of product end-of-life, and design for recycling. Insights for the period from Y
2050–2025: higher functionality (use efficiency) of personalised products, supported quick
manufacturing to customer specifications. For car industry, once this is a daily reallity, the challenge
is to find ways of delivering niche-products at affordable prices. This is requiring, on the other hand,
a high level of integration with suppliers. De-materialisation initiatives are largely addressing to lower
fuel consumption, and better process and cost reductions on recycling (product life cycle control) to
control valuable materials/modules, but also a chain of higher value services on individual
transportation (still increasing) where product–service integration is exhibiting barriers on values of
ownership, or translating from hard product to service producers. In the paint industry, main strategies
identified are: (a) coatings fitness, and their use on metallic substrates (redesign on purpose); (b) eco-
efficiency improvements (powder and rad-cure coatings based), considering: (b1) use of low impact
materials e.g. no solvents use; renewable materials; less colouring; (b2) reduce material intensity e.g.
reduction of complexity on colours; de-complex coating systems; thinner layers on coatings
(electrophoresis; plasma); fewer number and function integration on layers (nanotechnology); adding
more functions to adhesives (information); coating before processing/ assembly; (b3) optimisation of
production techniques; (b4) optimisation of distribution systems; (b5) reduction of impact during use
e.g. lower consumption, few additional materials; (b6) Optimisation of initial life-time e.g. increasing
durability, reliability, adaptability, service repair, enable metal-based products not to require organic
coatings any more (e.g. non-ferrous space frame constructions); (b7) optimisation of end-of-life
system (e.g. reduce the amount of materials dispersed or lost by final dispersion, increasing the
proportion of materials recovered, reused, re-manufacturing, and/ or recycled).

Focused on a central need, the workshop lead to a discussion of what each option
meant for the group, and what individual responses should be within a multi-organis-
ational learning process. It also enabled us to get insight on conditions for collective
commitment and barriers to future implementation of such activities.
While creativity brainstorm sessions enabled the construction of normative scen-
arios from the ideas/directions generated, the 2nd WS consisted of a new round of
group interaction to evaluate the content of scenarios, discuss their potential and
possible improvements, and to have a reflection on concrete strategies by reasoning
backwards from the future visions to the current situation. Stakeholders were brought
together in the 2nd WS to:

1. Discuss and evaluate the viability of those scenarios, gauging their receptiveness;
2. Get insight on goal-sharing, through a backcasting process, and on conditions for
co-operation and the implementation of R&D projects;
3. Exchange opinions and constructive feedback according to their background and
fine-tuning existing elements of the scenarios;
4. Formulate stepwise short/mid-term actions (R&D, pilot demonstration projects)
to be undertaken based on each scenario;
850 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

Fig. 1. Environmental and socio-economic assessments for different innovation scenarios (a–d), address-
ing to a polymeric coating in average generic cars.

5. Identify who shares and is able to contribute/carry out those actions accepted
within scenarios on the basis of co-operation frameworks;
6. Identify opportunities, barriers and conditions for action implementation
(technological, socio-economical, cultural) of such an agenda.

With the main focus on implementation, the discussion among the participants,
and the subsequent assessment results, were the outcome of a process which builds
on the individual and joint reflection throughout the debate.
The aim is to build congruent meanings among the actors for whom the meaning
of the artifact under focus plays different roles. The paint industry needs to deliver
better layers. Substrate industries need to deliver better surfaces. Car manufacturers
need to produce cleaner, safer and more comfortable vehicles. Government needs to
have strategies for more sustainable activities in order to develop adequate policies.
According to Guba and Lincoln [26] with fourth-generation evaluation, to build
congruent meanings for instance in policy analysis, that is first conditioned by the
perceptions of reality related to the different groups of actors involved in the policy
area. The evaluator then tries to discuss and establish, in the context of a joint action,
a meaning for the policy outcomes within these perceptions of reality (dependence
on overarching theories and appreciative systems).
So, in the paint chain, co-operation was used as a key issue, and backcasting as
a tool to stimulate working backwards iteratively. Assessment results were used as
input starting points for further discussion about: (i) shared long-term goals, and a
subsequent backwards-like planning process; (ii) insight on interim development
stages and operational conditions to be fulfilled, in order to achieve them.
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 851

Fig. 2. Assessment of current situation, according to the three main dimensions (a–c), giving emphasis
to the different lifecycle stages.

Considering the research question “How to encourage successful interaction

among different communities ?”, through the 1st WS stage the methodology provided
working ingredients on a socio-technical basis, for further interaction among actors
in the chain. The aim of the next stage for group interaction was designed to promote
effective discussion on concrete actions and their implementation. So, different pro-
fessional communities were brought together again, for a 2nd WS and follow-up
meetings—industry and branch associations, university, independent R&D, govern-
ment.
Addressing the question “How to get consensus about the long-term issues ?”, it
was observed that having identified in the 1st WS shared future visions and back-
casted long-term options for changes in the supply chain, a normative approach in
the 2nd WS supported by backcasting analysis is very useful, giving us insight on
conditions (i.e. a ‘how’ question) under which those future options may be achieved.
However, coalition building abilities are very important at this stage based on if:then
approaches with the assistance of a facilitator.
Addressing the questions “How can it be possible to perform an identified plan
?” and “Which tools would be required ?”, creating a discussion forum produced a
set of shared meanings about a main technology or policy outcome, enabling us to
852 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

negotiate the different meanings of the outcomes among the involved groups of
stakeholders.
Selection criteria included the ability to discuss long-term oriented issues, on
research, management and policy perspectives. As such, the panel-list involved old
and new participants to the process. The importance of the invited participants’ pro-
file, and the criteria for forming the working groups, recognises the dependency of
coalition forming with involved frames of meaning. That dependency also justifies
the debate organised by subgroup forms used in BGII, to fine-tune the match between
the different professional groups involved. As referred to by Grin and van de Graaf
[27] e.g. a policy (or technology) coalition has relatively good opportunities for
identifying and reaching congruent meanings within policy area actors—those actors
that will be involved on the assessment discussion about implications for action and
implementation. This is the rationale for idea triggering in BGII, where protection-
related functional layers (adding-on material) are replaced by a combined effect
transferring the protection functionality to the substrate itself (requiring a shift to
more corrosion resistant materials) and adding value instead, through extra func-
tionalities like the case resulting from BGI discussion: the energy supply by photo-
voltaic cells displayed within an external thin film.
Coalition ability is very important for goal achievement. However, before that
happens, two other conditions have to be fulfilled among key actors: to build trust,
and to agree on basic values.
For such purpose, let us consider the four levels of argument used as proposed
by Fisher, referred to in Grin and van de Graaf [27], there are two orders of discourse,
and two levels of argument in each order. Just on the basis of a 1st order of discourse,
the frames of meaning for the three groups of actors, having set and translated their
objectives regarding a technological artifact, is in general the following: (i) techno-
logical perspective: identifying development paths and performing R&D; the mean-
ing of an artefact inspires development paths; (ii) management perspective: giving
assignment and exploring the necessary functional units; the artifact is a solution to
a challenge facing the company; (iii) policy-making perspective: defining causal
means-end chains, reflecting the expected contribution to perform the set objectives;
the artifact obtains its meaning from the perspective of its contribution to the solution
of the perceived policy problem.
As stressed by Grin and van der Graaf [27], among a pool of actors operating
with different meanings, sharing those meanings is not necessarily required for
coalition effects and joint action, provided that there exists an artifact that incorpor-
ates the diversity of meanings involved. Therefore, making the transition from 1st
WS to 2nd WS, to have a clear focus on problem solving and shared implementation
pathways, the level of abstraction had to be reduced and convergent effects stimu-
lated in a systematic way.
The effects of the time frame and the external influences on the process, such as
regulation, are more significant during the 2nd WS than in the 1st WS, forward
looking action planning and possible mechanisms to reach congruent meanings, are
the basis for the joint action among the different types of actors.
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 853

Achieving synthesis through effective joint constructions within the interactive

and iterative process includes two important aspects:

1. The beliefs of each actor (1st/2nd order believes); also individual aspects are
complementary to company’s interests;
2. Opportunities to build congruency:
앫 Change of problem definitions (e.g. protection is a function transferable to
the substrate);
앫 Change of solutions (e.g. thin layers enable higher added value on surfaces).

Fine-tuning scenarios during discussion is useful to build joint action, stimulating

convergency and, finally, synthesis. Scenarios had a good receptiveness during pre-
testing stage. ‘EverLasting surfaces’ was the least well-received scenario in one-to-
one meetings, because it was a threat to business, even for surface suppliers on
automotive applications. However, due to WS discussion it proved to be very inter-
esting, helping to identify new values within thin film applications.
The threats and stimuli felt by participants thoughout the process may result from
the ability of individuals to discern windows of opportunity in each scenario, speci-
ally when being out of mainstream thinking (e.g. ‘this is not our business’—dis-
cussing ever lasting surfaces), but also on the ability to de-couple individual and
corporate interests. This is particularly the case during the discussion of scenarios,
in the frame of group action, and it may be analysed on the basis of the receptiveness
graphs (e.g. BGI-‘EverLasting...’).
From Fig. 3, it is clear that in the beginning of the discussion on ‘EverLasting
Surfaces’, it seemed that the two value systems (paint manufacturing, the others)

Fig. 3. Actors’ receptiveness during discussion of future actions based on a specific scenario: the case
of BGI-‘EverLasting Surfaces’.
854 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

could not be bridged. Later, there were two technical paths available (titanium, and
especially PV coatings) that changed the course of discussion, with complementary
effects, towards congruency, because it addressed the emergence of new solutions
with added value (though paint manufacturers did not pick it up immediately) ‘—
We deliver layers!’. During that discussion, it was recognised that paint producers
have no corporate research to deal with such long-term and more integrative issues.
So, the observed change may be justified by the individual ability to recognise win-
dows of opportunity, which comes some steps before the recognition and decision-
taking process at a corporate level. Moreover, when there is an external pressure in
the process (e.g. a kind of zero emission vehicles (ZEV) mandate1) [28–30], then
some parts of the discussion are not discussed anymore (... just the time frame; or
how to buffer negative impacts on business, etc).
The discussion regarding ‘SusCoats’, on the other hand, was determined by differ-
ent and simpler constraints, where conditions for congruency were not so disparate.
In part, this is due to the fact that the issues discussed were addressing more sus-
tainable raw materials (e.g. vegetable oils), which is a sort of incremental improve-
ment within the mainstream paint technology, as basic designs are not changed.
Renewable raw material suppliers basically stressed the need for industrial partners,
while paint producers recognised among several improvements addressing de-materi-
alisation, and that the field of vegetable oils is also of interest. Meanwhile, research
costs might contribute to process bottlenecks. Again, based on Fisher as referred to
in Grin and Van de Graaf [27], when translating the four levels of arguments to
achieve synthesis within the frame of ‘EverLasting Surfaces’ and ‘SusCoats’ dis-
cussion, it is interesting to analyse how far these four levels were used in the 2nd
WS. At level 2 (arguments of phenomenological nature), the formation of the groups
(coalition) is important. At this level, it is important to have more homogeneous
groups (technology- or policy-oriented, as performed for BGII), than heterogeneous
groups (as performed in the SusHouse project). Besides the composition of the group,
to achieve shared interests, the process needed to address the following issues:

1. The means (e.g. identification of required building blocks; feasibility studies);

2. Problem definitions (a kind of a road map is required, if no agreement is possible,
to facilitate short-term steps);
3. Strong drivers are market and regulation, therefore long-term drivers are needed
to get industry into long-term R&D;

1
Although organisations often attempt to preserve business as usual when facing threatening new
external conditions like stringent environmental regulation [28], in some organisations however even those
attempts result in setting in motion an internal process of change towards innovation. It causes them to
have a gradual shift in mindsets and when, having evidence of gains, follow a stepwise evolution to
different organisational structures and operational practices [29]. In a process where gains can accumulate,
participants begin to change their roles, perceptions and expectations of the value of future actions. A
particular case is identified in car industry, through the development of ZEV. Car manufacturers not
submitted to California ZEV mandate show less efforts in developing radical innovations than those who
are, though global competition makes them to act as followers in some technological paths (e.g. fuel cell
technology) and/or to re-assess other existing R&D programmes (e.g. electric vehicles) [30].
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 855

4. Time frames (worst case, within ‘EverLasting ...’: new applications for thin layers
with added value may require just 10 y);
5. Boundaries (e.g. structures can be a boundary condition for new coalitions
between actors-PV coatings in cars needs a European level approach due to inte-
gration and policy requirements, but also to necessitate strong coalitions);
6. Decision-making about implementation (the joint construction level achieved does
not enable us to assure a subsequent project design and implementation step; the
SusHouse project had the same constraint). The relative power a company has in
the chain makes the difference, having initiative according to the required strategy.
Moreover, decision-making requires future stages and different conditions, strictly
limited to the required building blocks and partnerships—it is not an open
process). In addition, questions like “Which developments are necessary?” or
“Which elements are needed ?” are difficult questions for companies in this (semi-)
open participatory context, specially if they have competitors in attendance.

Regarding the discussion on the ‘going as usual’ scenario, there was the argument
that its aims are too close to ‘SusCoats’, therefore, it should not be included, as
business people rely on it too much (e.g. pre-testing meetings with paint producers
R&D, or with material suppliers on automotive applications). However, this scenario
is useful as a ‘reference’ scenario, to clearly define the contrast with the other scen-
arios based on the assessment results. That comparison would not make sense if
based only on confronting the current situation.
On the subject of whether scenarios are credible and useful sketches for design
strategies, scenarios were seen as analytical tools, not starting points for concrete
projects. They were useful to make the process more elaborate, reinforcing the
involvement of stakeholders and the preparation for a new round to build partner-
ships. For that purpose, better conditions for partnership building are needed, which
go beyond the steps tested with this methodology. Scenarios worked as a stage for
a new round among the key actors to find ways to achieve congruent meanings and
a synthesis between distinct viewpoints. In fact, this had to be identified during the
different levels of discussion, according to the structure of the 2nd WS. In fact, the
purpose was to set broad objectives (new paths, ...) and mobilise driving forces to
promote discussions among actors, reflecting from particular future end-points 20 y
in the future to the present. Within the scenarios defined, those assumed break-
throughs are of particular importance for the scope of this study. Short-term oriented
issues, for comparison purposes, also had to be considered because they are very
attractive for current business, consisting of two complementary directions: cost
reduction and problem-solving, dealing with issues like more rational measures on
production, higher levels of automation, reduction of production costs; and the
approach to new standards. These issues are of interest anyway, within the backcast-
ing analysis, as they represent current approaches concerning current bottom-lines
regarding future transitions.
Reflecting on what is required to take action within the implementation of scen-
arios and how to promote ownership, primary conditions are to avoid threats to
business in a broad sense (e.g. “We don’t need the paint industry!”), and to have
856 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

flexible scenarios (details should only stimulate discussion) to enable a step-by-step

identification of shared visions towards joint constructions. Considering the needs
of the stakeholders involved (or to be involved) in identified changes, in addition to
trust building and agreement on basic values in order to create coalition conditions, as
far as specific groups are concerned the following requirements should be considered:

1. Government needs long-term strategies;

2. Technologists need the required building blocks, adequate partners;
3. Managers require market expectation and feasibility studies.

Considering how to effectively promote ownership and implementation, based on

shared problem orientation, three conditions were revealed to be important:

1. The availability of normative scenarios, resulting from shared options among key
actors, to set broad objectives and identify driving forces;
2. The use of backcasting analysis, to reflect within predefined time frames on tran-
sitions, from the considered future development level to the present;
3. The availability of adequate building blocks.

Regarding the question of divergent problem definitions, different problem defi-

nitions have been shown not to hinder congruency, once there is a common denomi-
nator available to catalyse joint constructions. Scenarios have to mobilise such dis-
cussion. Thus, what can we learn from discongruency/divergency of interests and of
action orientation, and how can we react to it? Discussion is framed within the
product chain (i.e. related challenges and problems), and within a pre-defined main
assumption about sustainability requirements which is broad enough to cover every
human being. Therefore, the key questions are, which paths satisfied the different
groups of actors, and which should be the rhythms of implementation.
Considering what the appropriate time scale should be for the responses/options
selected (i.e. when should the process take place?) transitions should be discussed,
considering future development levels that are far enough ahead in time (10–20 y),
according to the knowledge available and the implications on the returns on invest-
ment of capital stocks applied.
Other important issues have to be addressed besides opportunities, actions and
their priorities: “Who are the other actors needed for co-operation?” “What are the
conditions and barriers when enrolling stakeholders (and key actors in particular)?”
and “How can those barriers be reduced?” It requires, however, future development
of specific plans for SusCoats and for EverLasting Surfaces (incl. swot analysis,
stakeholder acceptance, social and economic issues, strategies, implementation pro-
posals based on activities, time frames, budget estimation, building blocks and
actors).
Organisations often attempt to preserve ‘business as usual’ when facing threaten-
ing external conditions e.g. stringent environmental regulation [28]. In order to over-
come companies lobbying effects, specially in the car industry, a policy recommen-
dation towards the EU, regards not only the design of market type incentives, rather
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 857

than environmental regulations, but the inclusion as well of minimum levels to stimu-
late local R&D and capabilities, adding value to the partnerships. The usefulness of
this methodology has shown to be less powerful, in this particular case of application
in PT compared to NL. Although product specifications involved have a global
approach, the great dependency from production under specification (offshore pro-
duction, subcontracting), or from large business supply-consumer arrangements at
holdings level, is frequently reducing local R&D to troubleshooting.
Moreover, in the particular case of PT national system, the 2nd WS (or an
additional step between the 1st and 2nd WS) requires a deeper explanation and dis-
cussion of the assessment methodology of scenarios (e.g. a numerical example,
addressing one of the scenarios) in order to facilitate receptiveness and comprehen-
sion of results, so that abstraction can also be more easily dealt with, in parallel
with short-term prevailing focus (e.g. dependency from current regulation, and from
troubleshooting agenda). Thus, PT stakeholders, when called to create and formulate
an agenda, are very grounded in daily problems, needing to ‘see in order to believe’,
rather than discussing if those daily problems may be formulated in a different way.
Thus, the creativity process in the country is being negatively influenced by external
R&D agendas, and by the short-term focus from local companies. In this particular
WS it is also recognised that a professional facilitator, not influenced by the status
quo, or individual concerns, would be useful to push group dynamics towards long-
term issues and stimulating the emergence from short-term dependency.

4. Discussion and conclusions

The basic standpoint for this research is the non-sustainability of current pro-
duction and consumption practices regarding paints. The method appears to be useful
in facilitating and catalysing the overall process with a high level of effectiveness,
being a multi-stakeholder approach, which addresses a complex and uncertain issue.
Different actors were successfully enrolled from the universe of stakeholders
within the product chain, contributing to the generation of ideas that were filtered
afterwards and used in scenario building. It appears that the creation of new innov-
ative network of actors within an identified strategic direction requires: (i) an effec-
tive identification of the network members; (ii) their commitment and partnership
abilities within vertical and horizontal relationships.
It also appears that a product chain approach and lifecycle thinking are useful for
assisting in shared problem orientation. Enrolling key actors in pre-defined long-
term issues is possible, but attention must be given to the structuring of (sub)networks
according to the position in the chain (strategies; cultures).
Moreover, credible scenarios in a time-effective process require brainstorming
with technical content and creativity workshops. Without credible scenarios, no deep
elaboration and no ownership effects during follow-up activities is possible.
The translation of scenarios to accepted and shared, more sustainable paths, is a
way of shedding light on new design strategies and fine-tuning R&D questions. Scen-
arios for long-term design strategies are useful to: (i) make the process more elabor-
858 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

ate; (ii) make the stakeholder part of the process; (iii) fine-tune options and generate
follow-up activities.
Solution directions were evaluated based on a 3D abridged lifecycle assessment
method (three 5 × 5 matrices).
Finally, scenarios were tested on their coherence and social acceptance. At this
stage, the 2nd WS is used to test pre-defined hypothesis, and ‘validate’ the results
of previous steps. It is oriented towards the implementation of concrete actions, based
on the discussion of scenarios, and on the generation of follow-up activities (e.g.
networks, platforms) based on the issues leading to development. Possible alterna-
tives are based on the results of the first interviews, written questionnaires, and first
workshop results (e.g. more elaborate scenarios and their evaluation on environmen-
tal gains). In addition, an iterative process of interviewing a group of experts (within
the stakeholders panel) to confront others’ arguments, was conducted. The ‘validation
of results’ should be read as an evaluation of acceptance individually and collec-
tively, as the input scenarios are a working tool (not an end-point) and, together with
the corresponding 3D A-LCA results, form an information set that needs to be flex-
ible to support the discussion and the joint construction process.
Possible alternative paths can be addressed both at substrate and/or coating levels,
being strongly favoured by the addition of marketable added value (e.g. PV coatings).
Shared solution directions were identified in both scenarios, but natural receptiveness
to implementation greatly depends on each player’s strategy. Looking forward
towards long-term action plans, that define a balance between differentiation and
integration of ideas, the main missions for collective commitment identified in the
chain are the following: (i) the paint industry should deliver better layers; (ii) the
material supplier should deliver better surfaces; (iii) the car manufacturer should
produce cleaner, safer and more comfortable vehicles; (iv) the government should
develop forward-looking policies e.g. addressing the feasibility of a sustainable car,
that would satisfy the tax payer, including a subprogramme on function integration.
In a social constructivist framework, it is assumed that preferred actions are soci-
ally constructed by individual actors, taking into account interests that are also soci-
ally constructed. The goals of 2nd WS were clearly emphasised beforehand
(preparatory contacts and workshop introduction). The options resulting from the
actors’ contributions during the 1st WS were used for scenario construction and for
pre-testing one-to-one interviews giving insight on actors’ preferences. These com-
bined steps provided a working tool to stimulate discussion on action implemen-
tation. Moreover, the set of desirable alternatives was confirmed to be helpful, prior
to beginning any effective analysis of action plans, to direct the course and stimulate
discussion within the pre-tested directions. The absence of such a tool, we believe,
would lead to a less structured process due to a more trial-and-error based approach,
conditioning shared meaning effects and possible coalitions. Thus, though scenario
building and assessment is a very time consuming process, we believe it is worth
using it as input information for the 2nd WS. Moreover, if the process only depended
on one person’s ability to form networks, it would also be time consuming, therefore
preventing interaction between potential partners from the early stages of the project.
After achieving the goals for the 1st WS, the 2nd WS enabled development
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 859

towards more innovative concepts, and some insight into the conditions for
implementation of concrete actions. However, this aspect still needs to be further
developed.
The 2nd WS was useful to: (i) select and assess opportunities and current support
for implementation of the main options identified, and networking mechanisms; (ii)
discuss ways of facilitating a more systematic gathering of building blocks; (iii)
identify how to enhance effectiveness and to acquire synergies among assumed
actions; (iv) discuss and improve the effectiveness of the tools used.
Regarding the sequence of workshops followed, our feeling is that the overall
outcome stimulates a multi-organisational learning process within a product chain
perspective, which helps the effectiveness of the discussions and the promotion of
new synergies between the parties.
From this stage till the stage of real project proposals, however, there is a line as
thick as the interplay of business interests, which includes other variables affecting
group dynamics (e.g. mutual trust, awareness of risk in a specific partnership), in a
process that can take months when someone (individually/collectively) is considering
a new partnership in a certain direction.
So, the next step in the methodology should be one of two ways:

앫 If the R&D subject has a clear business interest, then it is important to directly
stimulate the initiative of the product champion, to perform specific task oriented,
one-to-one meetings, in a step-by-step building process;
앫 If there is no clear business, but a strong policy interest, then the policy maker
should facilitate (or subcontract that role) the interplay and trust-building process
between the key players, keeping the approach format of a step-by-step building
process. This process would be supported by discussions, from a broader scope
starting from opportunities, back experiences and debate, towards more specific
focus and individual interests. It would be initiated with a workshop of
representatives/delegates from the different fields of discussion. At a later stage,
following expressions of interest in bilateral co-operation within specific focus,
as in the Eureka initiative (www.eureka.be), more detailed events on selected
issues or one-to-one meetings have to take place, based on a bilateral-meetings
agenda, where the parties are invited to initiate concrete proposals for joint
research projects.

In parallel with project preparations within the Eureka programme, we believe

that those one-to-one meetings are essential for a later effective commitment in parti-
cular if people come together without knowing each other well.
Also, within the algorithm for this working methodology, feedback loops are
required due to the unknown changing probability, which surrounds debate affected
by great uncertainty.
The method should be flexible enough to facilitate feedback effects each time the
system reflects robust conclusions or new variables/inputs.
To achieve synthesis conditions, the issues steered and discussed during scenario
discussion could enable the identification and selection of the one(s) that will fuel
860 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861

BGII subgroup discussions. That selection is based on shared interests shown by

participants, but it is up to the researcher/facilitator to finally decide which is the
common denominator that has the most positive impact (catalysing synthesis) the
next discussion steps.
The degree of detail achieved in action plans should enable: (i) the identification
of the objectives; (ii) a swot approach; (iii) stakeholder acceptance; (iv) addressing
social and economic issues; (v) insight on strategies and implementation proposals;
and (vi) the identification of the required building blocks and actors to be involved.
Very seldom a key actor, particularly in a scale-intensive sector, will share a good
idea (to build a comparative advantage) for nothing. Therefore, real decision-making
about a new project is expected to happen beyond the scope of the 2nd WS, with
arrangements following the required building blocks and partnerships (not being an
open process).
The structure of the network that is involved in the discussion will largely influ-
ence the basic ‘raw material’ for discussion. Two aspects of particular importance
are: (i) the risk of not having a balance between users/ consumers input and the
technical aspects involved, which is of key importance in enrolling industrial design;
and (ii) the need and ability to involve car manufacturers (as paint applicators) in
such a network, as particular conditions are required for that, especially within their
supplying clubs, which are a privileged forum to in the car supply chain.

Acknowledgements

This research has been sponsored by a grant from the Portuguese Science and
Technology Foundation, Praxis XXI Programme, and by INETI (P).

References

[1] Saviotti PP. Systems theory and technological change. Futures 1986;18(6):773–86.
[2] World Commission on Environment and Development. Our common future. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1987.
[3] Kemp R. Technology and the transitin to evironmental sustainability: the problem of technological
regime shifts. Futures 1994;26(10):1023–46.
[4] Schot J, Hoogma R, Elzen B. Strategies for sifting technological systems: the case of the automobile
system. Futures 1994;26(10):1060–76.
[5] Irwin A, Georg S, Vergragt PhJ. The social management of environmental change. Futures
1994;26(3):323–34.
[6] Partidário PJ, Vergragt PhJ. Shaping Sustainable technology development in the coatings chain.
Defining boundaries, environmental problems and main players. J Clean Produc 2000;8(3):201–14.
[7] Nelson RR, Winter SG. In search of a useful theory of innovation. Res Pol 1997;6:36–76.
[8] Pavitt K. Sectoral patterns of technical change: towards a taxonomy and a theory. Res Pol
1984;13:343–73.
[9] Vergragt PhJ, Jansen L. Sustainable technological development; the making of a Dutch long term
oriented technology program. Project Appraisal 1993;8(3):134–40.
[10] Ducot C, Lubben GJ. A typology for scenarios. Futures February, 1980;51–7.
[11] Callon M. The sociology of an actor-network: the case of the electric vehicle. In: Callon M, Law
 P.J. Partidario, Ph.J. Vergragt / Futures 34 (2002) 841–861 861

J, Rip A, editors. Mapping the dynamics of science and technology: sociology of science in the real
world. London: Macmillan; 1986. p. 19–34 [chapter 2].
[12] Robinson JB. Energy backcasting—a proposed method of policy analysis. Energy Pol December,
1982;337–44.
[13] Weaver P, Jansen L, van Grootveld E, Vergragt PhJ. Sustainable technology development. Sheffield,
UK: Greenleaf Publ. Ltd., 2000 [ISBN 1874719098].
[14] Vergragt PhJ. Strategies towards the sustainable household. The Netherlands: TBM-Delft University
of Technology, August, 2000 [Final report SusHouse project, EU contract no. ENV4-CT97-0446,
ISBN 90-5638-056-7].
[15] Green K, Vergragt P. Towards sustainable households: a methodology for developing sustainable
technological and social innovations. Futures 2002;34(5):381–400.
[16] Schot J, Rip A. The past and future of constructive technology assessment. Technol Forecast Soc
Change 1996;54:251–68.
[17] Partidário PJ, Vergragt PhJ. Towards leap-frog innovations in a coatings chain—a backcasting study
in Portugal and the Netherlands. Nineth Greening of Industry Network Conference, Doctoral
Research Workshop, Thailand, Bangkok; January 21st–24th, 2001.
(http://www.eric.chula.ac.th/GIN-Asia).
[18] Graedel T. Streamlined life-cycle assessment. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Upper Saddle River, 1998
[ISBN 0-13-607425-1].
[19] Grin J, van de Graaf H, Hoppe R, Groenewegen P. Technology assessment through interaction—a
guide. The Hague: Rathenau Institute, 1997.
[20] Busato F. Powder coatings in the third millenium—a world overview. In: Vincent Verlag, editor.
Proc. “Powder Coatings Europe 2000” Congress. Amsterdam; January 19–21, 2000. p. 409–17.
[21] Alfort H-J. Powder coatings in Europe. In: Vincent Verlag, editor. Proc. “Powder Coatings Europe
2000” Congress. Amsterdam; January 19–21, 2000. p. 7–13.
[22] Champagne R. Worldwide automobile production. Automotive Eng Int June, 1998;43–6.
[23] Harsch M, Finkbeiner M, Piwowarczyk D, Saur K, Eyerer P. Life-cycle simulation of automotive
painting processes. Automotive Eng Int February, 1999;211–4.
[24] Ryntz RA. Coating evolution in the automotive industry: an update. In: Vincent Verlag, editor.
Proceedings of Fifth Congress ‘Creative advances in coating technology’, PRA. vol. 1, Nürnberg;
April 12–14, 1999.
[25] Meijkamp R. Changing consumer behaviour through eco-efficient services: an empirical study of
car sharing in the Netherlands. Bus Strat Environ 1998;7:234–44.
[26] Guba EG, Lincoln YS. Fourth generation evaluation. London: Sage Publications Inc., 1989 [ISBN
0-8039-3235-9].
[27] Grin J, van de Graaf H. Technology assessment as learning. Sci, Technol Hum Values Winter,
1996;21(1):72–99.
[28] Ashford NA. Understanding technological responses of industrial firms to environmental problems:
implications for government policy. In: Fisher K, Schot J, editors. Environmental strategies for
industry. Washington, DC: Island; 1993. p. 277–310.
[29] King A. Organizational response to environmental regulation: punctuated change or autogenesis?
Bus Strat Env 2000;9:224–38.
[30] Hoed R, van den Bovee M. Responding to stringent environmental regulation. The case of the
automotive industry, Conference ‘Eco-management and auditing’, Nijmegen; June 21–2, 2000.