IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v52y2025i1p128-145..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Mission cocreation or domination? Explorative and exploitative forces in shaping the Dutch circular agriculture mission

Author

Listed:
  • Laurens Klerkx
  • Stephanie Begemann
  • Matthijs Janssen

Abstract

One largely neglected focus in the analysis of mission-oriented innovation policies is mission cocreation between stakeholder groups advocating different solution directions. In this paper, we introduce the innovation management concept of ambidexterity to study how mission cocreation in different mission arenas is influenced by actors aiming to continue existing innovation pathways (exploitative innovation) and actors advocating alternative pathways (explorative innovation). Our case study on the Dutch circular agriculture mission highlights how an initial top-down strategy development was dominated by exploitative forces, despite ambitions to secure broad stakeholder participation. Government-led efforts to still engage exploration-minded actors, and restore ambidexterity, were hampered by potential contributors feeling excluded from the policy process. These findings underline the risk that openness of missions, required for broad stakeholder involvement, might also reinforce pre-existing contestation and innovation pathways. Overall, our findings demonstrate a trade-off between maximizing efficiency and speed versus obtaining novel perspectives and wide societal legitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Laurens Klerkx & Stephanie Begemann & Matthijs Janssen, 2025. "Mission cocreation or domination? Explorative and exploitative forces in shaping the Dutch circular agriculture mission," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 128-145.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:128-145.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scae061
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:52:y:2025:i:1:p:128-145.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.