62 spots where green economy resources correspond with weak governance zones (Bringezu and Bleischwitz in press). In those places, a push for transparency and public participation will be crucial to ensuring that resources are utilised properly and that the resulting revenues are handled responsibly. As regards biofuels, the risks of continued land grabbing for large-scale, commercial investment threatens the security and livelihoods of local landholders. Land acquisition and leasing has sometimes been encouraged by governments, and there is a risk that the revenues from selling and leasing the land, as well as those from biofuel production, will not benefit the majority of citizens in those countries. In the case of mining, opportunities for corruption are plentiful. For instance, the militarization of mining for tantalum (used e.g. in mobiles and PCs) in the Democratic Republic of Congo is well documented. The demand for gallium (used in green-tech) will probably lead to enhanced bauxite mining in Guinea, China, Russia and Kazakhstan. The need for rare earth metals (used in wind turbines and hybrid cars) will probably mean more mines in China, Russia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Botswana and Malaysia. Potential measures to prevent the resource curse of the green economy can be learned from development research (Gylfason 2009) and ongoing activities aimed at the oil, gas and mining industries. Transparency is a critical first step and organizations like the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative, Publish What You Pay and the Revenue Watch Institute are promoting the public disclosure of industry payments and host government earnings. The World Bank (2010) proposes transparency as one of their 7 principles for responsible agro-investment in farmland. International legal instruments may be another method—for instance Siegle (2009) suggests criminalizing the diversion of natural resource revenues, for which the United Nations Convention against Corruption could provide the framework. In the private sector, corporate responsibility is a must. Those corporations which have met high standards of transparency and sustainability in the mining industry could be used as models for others, in particular for greening the supply chain. Codes of conduct should promote adherence to social and environmental standards and continued consultation and oversight of affected local communities. The Rio+20 Earth Summit is an opportunity to address these issues and facilitate forward-looking mitigation efforts for responsible resource use; for instance by establishing open trade for critical metals and recycling, forming an international covenant to close material loops of resource-intensive consumer goods, and taking steps towards an international agreement on sustainable resource management (Bleischwitz 2009). In any case, the development of a green economy must not exacerbate the existing resource curse, but instead draw on experiences and work with ongoing initiatives to prevent it from the start. In developing the eco-innovations that will enable this transition, it is critical to also look at life-cycle wide impacts beyond the borders of the EU when establishing accounting schemes, standards and certification of new products along the supply chain. In the long-term, the growing strain on natural resources may be best addressed by enforcing legal requirements, supporting democracy, stepping up civil society oversight and demanding business commitments to transparency and responsibility. In doing so, the market opportunities of sustainable resource management and making best use of mineral endowments will be enhanced.
6 | Driving eco-innovation eco-innovation observatory From an idea to a successful implementation, all innovation activities are driven forward or hampered by various factors both internal and external to company. The EIO follows a systemic approach to understanding determinants of eco-innovation that encompasses a diverse range of factors: ● Economic and financial factors (e.g. pricing, market position, access to capital, demand) ● Technical and technological knowledge base (e.g. absorption capacity, human capital, infrastructure, technological lock-ins) ● Environmental factors (e.g. access to natural resources) ● Socio-cultural factors (including elements of social capital understood as the ability to collaborate and to take collective action, as well as cultural capital e.g. attitudes towards change, risk) ● Regulatory and policy framework (including environmental and innovation polices, taxes, standards and norms). This chapter analyses eco-innovation drivers and barriers in EU countries and various sectors. It is based on the results of CIS (Eurostat 2010b) and Eurobarometer (EC 2011b) (major EU-wide surveys), as well as on the findings of EIO country profiles (EIO 2011) for countries (sections 6.1.2 and 6.2) and sectors (section 6.1.3). 6.1 | Drivers and barriers of eco-innovation as seen by business 6.1.1 | General overview Eco-innovation drivers The most important drivers of eco-innovation according to the Eurobarometer survey are the current and expected high prices of energy. Every second company that introduced an eco-innovation ranked current (52%) and expected energy prices (50%) as “very important” (Figure 6.1). High material prices are nearly as significant with 45% of companies indicatating high material prices as a very important driver. Another key factor is having “good business partners”; 45% of companies deemed it “very important”. Significantly more companies considered having “good business partners” of higher importance than cooperation with research institutes and universities (19%). Four in ten eco-innovators (40%) considered access to subsidies and fiscal incentives a very important driver. Annual Report 2010 The most important drivers of eco-innovation according to the Eurobarometer survey are the current and expected high prices of energy. 63