Paper to be presented at the DRUID Summer Conference 2004 on

INDUSTRIAL DYNAMICS, INNOVATION AND DEVELOPMENT

Elsinore, Denmark, June 14-16, 2004

Theme A
Suggested theme:
Theme A: Systems of Innovation, Growth and Development

IMPACTS OF INNOVATION ON PERFORMANCE: THE INTRODUCTION

OF CLEANER TECHNOLOGIES IN THE COOPERATIVE PALM OIL
SECTOR, COSTA RICA
Author: Jeffrey Orozco
Affiliation: International Centre for Economic Policy, Universidad Nacional, Costa Rica
Apartado 555-3000, Heredia, Costa Rica
Phone (506) 263-4550 ext. 123. Fax: (506) 260-1270
e-mail address: jorozco@una.ac.cr
Date of submission: April 29th 2004

Brief abstract
In this paper I asses the relevance of innovation processes for the development at firm level,
especially for improvements of the environmental performance. The analysis is based on a
case study in the co-operative palm oil sector in Costa Rica. Development at firm level is
studied as the process of continuous improvements towards sustainable performance. A core
argument is that the introduction of cleaner technologies can be studied as innovation
processes determined by the quality of the systems of innovation. The argument developed is
that the critical variables determining the performance of the cooperative sector have been
continuously changing but the system of innovation has changed slower.
Keywords: Sustainable performance, Cleaner technologies, Innovation System
JEL - code(s). L25; O31; Q55

Impacts of innovation on performance: the introduction of cleaner technologies

in the cooperative palm oil sector, Costa Rica
(draft, April 2004)

Jeffrey Orozco
In this paper I asses the relevance of innovation processes for the development at firm level,
especially for improvements of the environmental performance. The analysis is based on a
case study in the co-operative palm oil sector in Costa Rica. Development at firm level is
studied as the process of continuous improvements towards sustainable performance. It is
argued that performance improvements depend on technical, organizational and institutional
changes promoted in processes of innovation. Improvements of environmental performance
are studied in terms of the introduction of cleaner technologies.
A core argument is that the introduction of cleaner technologies can be studied as innovation
processes determined by the quality of the systems of innovation. Most of the factors that
determines the environmental performance and the introduction of cleaner production are
directly or indirectly affected by the factors facilitating or hindering innovation. At the same
time, improvements of environmental performance strongly depend on the innovative
capabilities as well as the capacity to orient institutional and technological change, which also
depends on the performance of the systems of innovation. It is stressed the need of
institutional change in order to build, sustain and improve innovation capabilities. Another
relevant idea is that the performance of the systems of innovation can be evaluated by
studying the quality of the interaction in the system.
The analysis is based on an operative approach to evaluate the performance at firm and
sectoral levels. This approach is based on the definition of critical variables. Such variables
are the core issues defining the performance of a specific sector or firm.
The paper is based on an historical approach. The argument developed is that the critical
variables determining the performance of the cooperative sector have been continuously
changing but the system of innovation has changed slower. It is possible to identify three
phases of maturity of the sector with gaps among challenges and innovations to manage the
challenges. In spite of a clear need for new interactions, the system of innovation has evolved
slowly. Old interactions are less useful in order to solve the new relevant variables of
performance, especially for environmental issues. The general problem is that, as other
developing countries, Costa Rica does not have adequate knowledge infrastructures and
institutional frameworks, in particular efficient training and education systems and advanced
financing, to promote innovation processes efficiently. This is particularly true for
innovations in terms of cleaner technologies. The paper argue about the need to co-ordinate
and integrate a wide range of policies (social policy, labour market policy, education policy,
environmental policy, science and technology policy) into a new type of development policy,
which also should include mechanisms of institution building and policy learning.

Impacts of innovation on performance: the introduction of cleaner technologies in the

cooperative palm oil sector, Costa Rica
1. Innovation and sustainable performance: a methodological framework
The concept sustainable performance is a way to have an operative approach of sustainable
development at firm and sector level. The core aim is to stress the idea of different challenges
to be considered in a holistic and systematic approach. The concept also has a political
orientation related to the selection of strategies for performance improvements. In the design
of strategies it is necessary to consider the trade-offs among different kind of targets. More
precisely, sustainable performance is defined as the simultaneous achievement of desired
scenarios of performance in three dimensions (economic, social and environmental). In
operative terms a process towards sustainable performance can be understood as an
evolutionary process of setting multidimensional targets and strategies to reach the targets.
Sustainable performance is as the concept of sustainable development- a holistic and
systemic approach, because it considers multidimensional objectives and suggests a systemic
way to evaluate targets and strategies. The core dimensions for performance at firm and
sector level are economic, environmental and social performance. The strategies at firm and
sectoral levels must consider several principles of sustainability (prevention, efficiency, etc)
and the possible trade-offs between the different dimensions.
With the concept of sustainable performance, attention is drawn on the long-term ecological
effects generated by firms and sectors, but also on the economic and social dimensions.
Targets of sustainable development can be more operational at firm and sectoral levels in
desired scenarios for variables in ecological, economical and social dimensions. Sustainable
performance is the achievement of such kind of targets. The concept stress the relevance of
constructing normative scenarios to show desired situations, but also to compare the actual
performance with respect to the desired situation, in order to design alternative strategies.
More operational targets in the economic dimension at firm level are related to
competitiveness and to the selection of critical variables of performance in the production
chain according to the characteristics of the markets in which the firms compete.
In the environmental dimension the targets are related to the reduction of resource
consumption (water, energy, chemicals, etc.), the reduction of emissions (wastewater, smoke,
noise, solid waste, etc.), internal recycling, separation of organic waste and re-use of it for
other purposes (e.g. animal food), to a more efficient use of raw materials, and to the
substitution of toxic chemicals and dangerous materials (Gilbert, 1993).
Operative targets in the social dimension are related to issues such as quality of life of owners
and employees (income, health and social security with respect to the rest of the economy)
labour satisfaction, and social opportunities. It is of big relevance the study of human
resources as a core factor for innovation processes.
Performance evaluation
Performance evaluation is developed in a process starting with the definition of key issues
and targets and with the selection of monitorable indicators. This is not only an ex post
exercise. Actually, as argued by Barbarie, the evaluation will focus on two separate tracks.
The first will be the formulation of performance indicators for deve lopment projects. The
second will be the carrying out of performance evaluation studies of development projects,
3

programs, and sectors. Initially, efforts will concentrate on the development of performance
indicators. Later a more comprehensive approach will be developed to include more
evaluation studies. This arrangement has been made possible, in part, by developing a system
of performance indicators, largely based on development results, formulated and maintained
by departmental (structural) mana gers, and by bringing this system in close parallel with
evaluation efforts practised by professional (functional) staff independent of management
(Barbarie, 1998: 73,74).
In summary, the performance evaluation is developed in several steps:
? Definition of critical issues and the related variables for setting targets to use as
parameters for evaluation
? Designing of appropriate indicators and data collection
? Measurement of the results and study of the extent in which the targets of each key issue
has been achieved
? Analysis of the causes explaining the gaps between the results and the targets
? Definition of new targets and strategies.
A performance evaluation considers three levels of analysis: key issues, critical variables and
indicators. The first level defines the key issues. The selection of key issues responds to the
question: what are the relevant matters or points for evaluating the performance? It defines
the core aspects that should be considered in the performance evaluation. The second level
defines the critical variables. A critical variable is a specific characteristic of a particular key
issue that may vary or change in different circumstances. The general question for the
selection of variables is: what specific characteristics of the key issues must be studied?. The
third level defines the indicators. An indicator is a particular measurement that serves to
indicate or give a suggestion of the performance for specific critical variables. The choice of
indicators is related to the question: what measurements can be used to indicate how the
variables perform? Both, key issues, critical variables and indicators can be defined in three
different dimensions of performance: economic, social and environmental, using the concept
of sustainable performance as a parameter.
2. Evolution of variables of performance
In the case under study, the analysis of the performance distinguished three main phases in
the development of the co-operative. All together, the tree phases are comprehensive,
describing the history of the co-operative until the end of the research period in June 2001.
The first phase considers the design and the development of the palm oil industry in the
sector, including the creation of the co-operative, the generation of the initial knowledge and
physical infrastructure and, basically, the generation of the first phase of plantations and the
first extraction plant. The phase went from the generation of the Law creating the Agroindustrial Palm Oil Project for Coto Sur, in 1986, until the beginning of the extraction process
in 1993.
The second phase considers the period, when the co-operative began producing fruit and
using it to produce crude palm oil. This phase went from 1993 to late 1996. The third phase
was considered the period, when the co-operatives set targets to develop new products with
more value added. This phase began in late 1996 and is currently still in process.
Considering different phases to analyse the performance of the co-operative over time, the
key issues and relevant variable of performance have been evolving. The set of key issue s
and variables was different in each phase, because the challenges and explicit targets were
4

different. The description of the key issues, variables and indicators for the performance
evaluation can be seen in the following table.
Key issues and variables for performance evaluation at firm level in different
phases of development of the cooperative palm oil sector
Key Issues
Economic dimension
Access and use of inputs in plantations
Amount of new plantations
Availability of fresh fruit for extraction
processes
Commercialisation system
Construction of an extraction plant and
installation of a refinery and other
equipment
Construction of the energy module
Costs
Development and maintaining of the
physical infrastructure
Development of a financial system for
the industry
Development of a financial system for
the industry
Development of new products
Efficiency of the management system
Insertion in new markets
Productivity of extraction
Productivity of farms
Profits
Quality of products
Sales
Social dimension
Consolidation of a knowledge base on
farm level
Consolidation of a knowledge base on
farm level
Creation of a co-operative
Creation of a knowledge base for
production and management processes

Formalisation of property rights for

farms
Involvement of a growing amount of
beneficiaries
Quality of life - owners and employees
Technical advisory for plantation
maintenance
Environmental dimension
Efficiency of the energy module
Environmental performance

Utilisation of by-products

Variables

Phases

Amount of fertiliser according to the technological

requirements
New planted area
Amount of fruit available for extraction processes

1,2,3

Efficiency in commercialisation processes

Grade of the extraction plant, the refinery and other
equipment ready

3
1

Grade of the energetic module ready on time

Cost of production
Amount of roads, drainage and bridges

1
3
1,2,3

Credits for plantations

1,2,3

Credits for investments in the factory

Funds for maintaining the physical infrastructure (roads,
drainage, bridges)
Capacity of the co-operative to develop new products
Efficiency
Capacity of the co-operative to reach new markets
Amount of crude oil
Amount of fruit per area harvested
Amount of profits generated
Quality with respect to parameters
Amount of products sold

1,2,3
1,2,3

Amount of farmers trained in technological issues

1,2,3

Amount of new farmers trained in management issues for

farmers
Grade of the requirements ready for the formalisation of the
co-operative
Amount of employees trained in the technological issues
Amount of employees trained in management issues
Amount of leaders trained for assuming the board or other
committees
Amount of farms with formal property rights

1,2,3

New families in the project

1,2,3

Contribution to quality of life

Amount of farmers with technical advisory

3
1,2,3

Amount of electricity generated

Environmental policy: clear setting of environmental targets
Awareness in employees and managers
Resources assigned to improve environmental performance
Use and disposition of waste
Environmental impacts with respect to parameters
Amount of solid waste used as by -products

2,3
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,3
2,3

1,2,3
2,3

3
3
3
2,3
1,2,3
2,3
3
2,3

1
2,3
2,3
2,3
1

3. Evolution of the systems of innovation

At firm level, during the first phase, the main actors in the system of innovation were
components of the national system of innovation (NIS) but neither of the local systems of
innovation (LSI) nor of the sectoral system of innovation (SSI). The actors were state
agencies mainly, co-ordinating at national level through the ad- hoc committee to promote the
palm oil project.
Figure 1.
Evolution of Systems of Innovation in the palm oil sector
First phase

BID
CDC

NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INNOVATION

CONACOOP
BNCR
STATE AGENCIES
INFOCOOP
IDA
LOCAL SYSTEM
MAG
OF INNOVATION
SECTORAL SYSTEM OF INNOVATION
MOPT
Municipality
SENARA
BNCR local
PublicRegistre
Seed and
ExecutingUnit Farmers
M. HACIENDA
Coopeagropal Fertiliser
suppliers
Equipment
suppliers

Second phase

NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INNOVATION

CONACOOP
INFOCOOP
STATE AGENCIES
Seed and SECTORAL SYSTEM OF INNOVATION
IDA
Banks
Fertiliser
MAG
suppliers National
M. HACIENDA LOCAL SYSTEM
competitors
Equipment
OF INNOVATIONFarmers
Advisors
suppliers
Coopeagropal National clients
Municipality
Banks (localagencies) Carriers of fruit
International advisors
And products
International clients
Communalorganisations

Third phase
NATIONAL SYSTEM OF INNOVATION
CONACOOP
INFOCOOP
Banks
SECTORAL SYSTEM OF INNOVATION
STATE AGENCIES
IDA
LOCAL SYSTEM
Siel& Siel Supliers environmental equipment
MAG
OF INNOVATION
Customers CANAPALMA
International
M. HACIENDA
Farmers
Advisors
Palmoil organisations
MINAE
Coopeagropal
Seed and National clients
SETENA
Carriers of fruit
Fertiliser
Equipment
MINSAL
And products
suppliers
suppliers
Municipality
CIPA and other
National
Banks (localagencies)
cooperatives
competitors
Customers
International advisors
International clients
JUDESUR
Communal organisations

The main state agency was the Institute for Agrarian Development (IDA), who was the
responsible to co-ordinate the ad-hoc committee of the project at local level. They coordinated the technological issues with the National Council for Production (CNP) and the
Ministry of Agriculture (MAG). For the construction and improvement of the physical
infrastructure, a co-ordination with the Ministry of Transport (MOPT) and with the Office for
Drainage and Water Supply (SENARA) took place. The Public Register was responsible for
formalising the property rights. The Ministry for Public Finance (M. Hacienda) was
responsible for managing the funding of the project, co-ordinating with the Inter-American
Bank of Development (BID), the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CCD) and also
with the banks in the country. None of these agencies were located in the area.
6

Once the government agreed on promoting the palm oil project in Coto Sur, they organised
the ad-hoc committee as responsible for implementing the project. The committee did coordinate most of the activities with other actors both at national and at local level. In the first
phase, the sector system of innovation was weak. The co-operatives only interacted with
suppliers of seed and fertilisers and with the foreign suppliers of equipment for the extraction
mill and for the refinery.
During the second and third phases, the group of actors at national level continued
interacting, but they did not really aim to improve the performance of the critical variables.
The national system of innovation was less useful to promote innovations at firm level. The
national policies were stopped, once the targets in the first phase were reached. The
cooperative began interaction with some other actors of the SSI, as suppliers, competitors and
users of the products. They also began interactions with some other local actors, especially
the Municipality. One of the banks opened a new agency in the area giving more facilities to
farmers and co-operatives. The co-operatives also had contact with foreign advisors who
would give support, when adapting the equipment under local conditions. But they did not
interact with the aim of improving the performance of other critical variables, especially
those related to the strengthening of a knowledge base.
During the third phase, the co-operative began interactions with international organisations in
the industry and with foreign clients. At national level, they also began interactions with
customers. Responding to the pressure of improving the environmental performance, they
also interacted with the Ministry of Environment and Energy (MINAE), more specifically
with the National Environmental Technical Secretary (SETENA), and with the Ministry for
Health (MINSAL). They also bought the basic equipment for environmental improvements,
interacting with national and foreign suppliers. Siel & Siel is an advisory firm giving support,
when handling environmental issues. In this phase, the co-operative also became part of the
National Chamber of Oil Palm Producers (CANAPALMA) and began interactions with the
Council for Development of the South Region (JUDESUR).
Summing up, during the first phase the points of convergence among the national system of
innovation with the local ones were the bank agencies and the ad- hoc committee. There was
also some participation from the local Municipality. But the only point of convergence with
the sectoral systems of innovation was the suppliers of seeds and fertilisers. During the
second and the third phases, some of the new actors in the sectoral system were not part of
the national and local systems. This was the case with foreign suppliers and clients. Some
new actors at local level did not have a role at national level, such as some communal
organisations. During the third phase, more interactions were introduced in the sectoral
system of innovation during the third phase.
The actors at national level did not contribute significantly during the first phase of
development of the sector. The exception was the Institute for Agrarian Development (IDA).
This institute gave some support to the definition of property rights of the farms. During the
second phase the participation of the actors at national level was also very poor with regard to
the development of the palm oil activity in the co-operatives. However, the collaboration
scheme between Coopeagropal and CIPA facilitated some innovations during the second
phase. During the third phase of development at sectoral level some actors at national level
began to give useful support. At local level JUDESUR (the Council for Development of the
Southern Region) facilitated innovation processes during the third phase. Some other actors
7

were foreign international organisations in palm oil industry and foreign suppliers of the
equipment for the new extraction mill for CIPA.
On both levels, the evolution of the critical variables of performance was not accompanied by
significant transformations of the innovation systems. Even when the sector was connected to
a growing number of actors, the systems presented deterioration in quality of interactions,
and no improvements in the networks were made, in order to improve the performance of
several critical variables1 . The shape of the systems of innovation changed, but the
performance of the systems did not improve significantly.
In general, the local and the sectoral systems had a growing number of actors. Most of the
new actors were not part of the national system of innovation. However, the actors did not
participate in any networks. Most of the interactio n happened between the co-operatives and
other actors. But the other actors did not interact with each other. During the first and the
second phases, the state agencies did not contribute to the improvement of the critical
variables.
4. The role of quality of interactions on the introduction of cleaner technologies
The evolution of systems of innovation has also explained the evolution of quality of
interactions in the sector. In the first phase, the main actors were: the small farmers, public
agencies, the National Bank, the Inter-American Development Bank, the Commonwealth
Development Corporation of England and the Costa Rican Government. The main public
agencies were the Ministry of Agriculture MAG-, the Institute for Agricultural Development
IDA-, the Ministry of Transport MOPT- and the Irrigation Department SENARA-. The
co-operative organisations with an important role in the first phase were the Institute for Cooperatives Promotion INFOCOOP-, and the National Cha mber of Co-operatives
CONACOOP-.
The first phase was based on the participation of several public agencies, co-operative
organisations and external agencies and on the co-ordination of the efforts by an ad-hoc
committee organised by IDA. The interactions were promoted to handle specific key issues in
the targets of the project. The model facilitated innovations to improve the performance of all
the critical variables. The strategy by the ad-hoc committee was to search for the support of
the actors with possibilities of developing the issues and defining the critical variables of
performance. However, the sector did not develop any clear networks during the first phase,
because of the different actors working together only for the palm oil project and not for other
projects. As presented in figure 2, the model was a machine bureaucracy lead by the ad-hoc
committee, but with fragmentary knowledge from other actors. In spite of that the project
performed very well, because of the policies, the interaction quality, and the financial
conditions.
After the development of the Coopeagropal, the co-operative was responsible for managing
the critical variables of performance. The general manager and the board members were
responsible for managing the organisational hierarchy. As already mentioned the interactions
among different departments were very weak, while fragmenting knowledge in the
departments and integrating it only at the top of the managerial hierarchy, such as presented
in figure 8.2. During the second and third phases, the internal departments in the co-operative
1

The discussion is in chapter 8, analysing the role of quality of interactions on innovation processes and on
performance improvements.

Figure 2

Main Interactions during three phases

Ad-hoc
committee , IDA

First phase

IDA MAG CNP

MOPT SENARA

CONACOOP INFOCOOP

Municipality

PUB.Reg.

Coopeagropal
Farmers
Suppliers
Banks

M.HAC

General Services
Agriculture

Second phase

Industrial Sales

Finances Infrastructure

Manager,
Board

Competitors

IDA MAG
CONACOOP INFOCOOP

Farmers

suppliers

Advisors

Municipality

Banks Clients

M.HAC

General Services
Agriculture

Industrial Sales

Third phase

Finances Infrastructure

Manager and Board ,

Coopeagropal

Int. Palm Oil Org .

IDA
MINAE
Municipality
MINSAL
SETENA
M.HAC

MAG

CONACOOP INFOCOOP
Siel& Siel Advisors

CANAPALMA
Suppliers
Competitors
Farmers CIPA
Clients
Banks

Customers
JUDESUR

were agriculture, general services, industrial, sales, finances and infrastructure. The machine
bureaucracy for organisational learning gave very little opportunity of developing strong
interactions among the internal departments.
The main external actors during the second phase were the municipality and the Ministry of
Finances (M.HAC), the Ministry of Agriculture (MAG), the Institute for Agriculture
Development, CONACOOP, INFOCOOP, some advisors, farmers, competitors, suppliers,
banks and clients. Some relevant actors contributed to the innovations, in order to improve
the performance during the first phase. These actors participated poorly in the second phase.
This was the case of the Ministry of Transport and the Irrigation Department. Most of the
other external actors continued with some kind of interaction, but with a poor contribution to
the improvement of the performance. The critical variables of performance changed with
respect to the first phase.

During the third phase, new state agencies began to interact with the co-operative. The
Ministry of Health MINSAL-, the Ministry of Environment MINAE-, and the Technical
Secretary for the Environment SETENA- began pressuring the co-operative to improve the
environmental performance. The co-operative also interacted with the advisory firm Siel &
Siel- searching for support to improve the environmental performance. The co-operative also
entered into the National Chamber of oil palm producers CANAPALMA- and
communicated with the consortium of the oil palm co-operative CIPA, as well as with the
Agency for Deve lopment of the South Region JUDESUR-.
Figure 3 Quality of Interactions for innovation processes, Coopeagropal
State Agencies
5

Internal interactions

Cooperative organisations
4

Competitors

International Cooperation
2

Advisors

Universities and I&D org.

Sectoral organisations

Financial Sector

Customers

Suppliers
Clients

Fase I

Fase II

Fase III

An overview of the quality of interactions is shown in figure 32 . During the first phase, the
ad-hoc committee, who developed the palm oil project, interacted with a few actors, and all
interactions facilitated innovations to improve the performance of the critical variables. The
interactions from the first phase were not that useful in the second and third phases, because
the key issues changed and the policies for a co-ordinated participation of state departments
ended, when the ad-hoc committee reached the targets. The interactions with actors, such as
universities, customers, sector organisations did not work as feedback mechanisms, in order
to facilitate innovation during any of the phases of development. The co-operative had some
feedback by the suppliers advisors and clients, which contributed to the incremental
innovations of adjusting the equipment and of improving the efficiency of the energy module.
Unfortunately, the co-operative did not develop a system for training employees and
members of the board. One of the causes was the lack of interactions between universities or
similar organisations. The physical infrastructure deteriorated, because of the lack of
interactions with the municipality and the Ministry of Transport. The co-operative did not
succeed in selling final products, because of poor interaction with experienced firms and poor
feedback mechanisms with customers. In general, only during the first phase, the interactions
contributed significantly to innovations. During the other two phases, the interaction quality
2

The information was collected during the focus groups and interviews. The participants discussed about the
quality of interactions considering each of the actors in the different phases of development. The objective was
to qualify the interactions using a scale from 1 (poor contribution to improve the performance) to 5 (high
contribution to improve the performance).

10

deteriorated. Good interaction quality facilitated all the innovations in the co-operative. On
the contrary, however, poor interactions hindered innovations, in order to handle several key
issues.
5. Barriers and motivators for the introduction of cleaner technologies
The general argument is that there are barriers and motivators to the introduction of cleaner
production that could be evaluated as a particular group of factors facilitating or hindering
innovation. Such barriers and motivators can be studied within a wider list of factors, as those
can that have been mentioned in previous chapters of this chapter. The general model is
presented in figure 4.
This model is also built considering both the groups of actors and the learning network
domains, which define interactions into the systems of innovation. The list of factors from the
literature on cleaner technologies is organised in the model according to the main groups of
actors.
In the group of suppliers and related industries, the main factors facilitating or hindering the
introduction of cleaner technologies are: the performance of the sector in which a specific
firm operates; the facilities to share information into the industry; and the existence of
technological bottlenecks in the sector which hinder the introduction of cleaner technologies.
Into the educational, training and R&D systems group of actor there is a relevant factor
facilitating or hindering innovation processes. The factor is the efficiency of these systems to
develop useful knowledge and to facilitate learning processes into the systems of innovation.
In the group delimited by market customers and competitors the main factors facilitating or
hindering the introduction of cleaner technologies are patterns of demand, the production
structure, and the existence of financial facilities into the markets.
Policies and regulations, including financial facilities for the introduction of cleaner
technologies are the main factors into the group of regulatory authorities and policy makers.
Finally, pull and push mechanisms, including the desire to have good relations with local
communities, are the main factors into the public sphere movements.
Into the firms, the main factors facilitating or hindering the introduction of cleaner
technologies are: the availability of information and expertise; the level of awareness of
environmental issues; financial obstacles; and the management systems, including the
systems of communication and the role of middle management employees.

11

Figure 4.5 Factors facilitating or hindering the introduction of cleaner technologies

S y s t e m

o f

Institutions
(laws, property rigths,
customs, work norms,
trust, policies,
financial facilities, etc)

1.

Path
dependency

Suppliers & related industries

Performance of the industry

Ability to share information
Technological bottlenecks in the industry

2. Educational training
& R&D systems

Quality
of
Interactions

Knowledge
and
Learning
processes

I n n o v a t i o n

Mechanisms to develop
useful knowledge and to
facilitate learning
processes

Level of
Uncertainty

4. Regulatory authorities
and policy makers
Policies and regulations
(direct and indirect)
Economic cycles

Firms
Information, expertise,
Awareness, resources,
Management system,
Stimuli, difficulties
advantages

3. Market customer
and competitors
Patterns of demand,
Production structure,

5.Other stakeholders
Public opinion and
representation
Legitimacy
Relation with the community

The analysis in the literature can also be organised according to this general model. For
example, for Gunningham and Sinclair (1997), the majority of barriers for cleaner production
confronted by firms could be placed into one of two categories: those that were internal to the
firm and those that were external to the firm. Their report identifies the main barriers or
factors hindering the introduction of cleaner technologies- as follows 3 :
Internal barriers:
??A lack of information and expertise
??A low awareness of environmental issues
??Competing business priorities, in particular, the pressure for short term profits
??Bounded rationality in decision making processes
??Financial obstacles
??Lack of communication in firms
??Middle management inertia
??Labour force obstacles
??Difficulty in implementing cleaner technology
External barriers:
??The failure of existing regulatory approaches
??Difficulty in accessing cleaner technology
??Difficulty in accessing external finance
??Perverse economic incentives
??An absence of markets for recycled goods
3

Both internal and external motivators and barriers in the discussion are considered in my model. These aspects
were organised in the model considering the main actors playing a role to determine the respective factors.

12

??Economic cycles
Primary motivators and drivers identified by Gunningham and Sinclair (1997) are:
government regulation; the ability to share information through networking and business
partnerships, and access to external expertise, particularly for smaller firms; the desire to
maintain good community relations, particularly for larger firms; the convergence of more
efficient production processes with sophisticated cleaner production processes, such as
environmental management systems; and access to financial incentives for investment in
new, cleaner technology.
For Remmen (1998) the barriers for the diffusion of cleaner technologies refer to unutilised
potentials. Studying the fishing-processing companies in Denmark he found three main
barriers: narrow problem definition (the relation to working conditions has not been assessed
and obvious possibilities of improvements have been neglected; the problem definition has
been to expert-centred with only a few consultants and senior executives involved); lack of
interaction among companies, suppliers and others (so far, cleaner technologies have
primarily been based on the ideas and contacts of consultants, missing the participation of
trade unions, trade associations, suppliers of machinery and equipment, etc.); and the
regulatory philosophy of standard setting (which has resulted in a deadlock, because once the
companies get the standards, they do not have more incentives for environmental
performance improvements). The narrow approach to cleaner technologies has resulted in a
negligence of internal barriers at the company level. Consequently, management has not
defined its environmental responsibility, and the company has not prepared a policy nor
established procedures for pollution prevention. The employees have not considered as a
resource, and incentives for a lasting prevention via changes in attitudes and behaviour have
not been created (Remmen, 1998: 209). The narrow problem definition can be considered as
barriers at firm level into my model. The lack of interactions among companies, suppliers
and others can be organised as barriers into the suppliers and related industries in my model.
Finally, the regulatory philosophy of standard settings is part of the factors into the regulatory
authorities and policy makers in my model4 .
The factors facilitating or hindering innovations in the co-operatives are also, directly or
indirectly, determinants of the performance of the critical variables. The innovations in the
co-operative sector are multi-causally explained. The different factors, with impacts on
innovation processes, are not independent of each other. In some cases they support each
other and in some cases the factors hindering innovation also reinforce each other. This is
particularly clear for the case of quality of interactions, which has effects on other factors but
is affected by other factors also. The determinants of innovation have been changing during
time, according to the evolutionary characteristics of the palm oil industry in the co-operative
sector.
The main factors facilitating or hindering innovations in the co-operatives are some
institutions, the quality of interactions, the knowledge and learning processes, the
4

The role of the levels of uncertainty, path dependency, institutions and quality of interactions is also pertinent
in the analysis of introduction of cleaner technologies. But it is not necessary to repeat the analysis in this
chapter. The general argument, as developed in chapter 3, is that the introduction of cleaner technologies can be
considered as innovation processes. In that sense, the factors facilitating and hindering innovation are also
factors facilitating or hindering the introduction of cleaner technologies. The grade of relevance of the different
factors varies from case to case. However, some factors as institutions, quality of interactions and knowledge
and learning processes are present in every case, as it was argued before in this chapter.

13

performance of the industry, capabilities of firms, financial facilities and the education and
training systems. Other factors are also relevant but they have minor impacts. This is the case
of path dependency, the level of uncertainty, the R&D systems, the patterns of demand and
the structure of production.
The role of institutions
The institution of co-operation has been relevant in innovation processes of the cooperatives because of its role to shape human interactions in the region. Some other
institutions have been relevant. The definition of property rights was, for example, important
as a requirement for financial facilities. Somme institutions have also been hindering
innovation at both firm and sectoral levels. The co-operatives have not been able to develop
good job training systems, to motivate their employees, and to develop the communication
between different departments. Amb iguity has also been present in some board or
management policies which promoted specific projects which were never closed. This
ambiguity hindered trust and le gitimacy which again hindered innovation. Because of this
ambiguity, the employees did not trust the continuity of programmes and policies. They did
not want to work on new programmes or projects because they were not sure about their
continuity.
Public policies
Some policies were aimed directly at stimulating innovations in order to improve the
performance of critical variables during the first phase of development of Coopeagropal. The
whole project developing this co-operative was designed as part of a regional and sectoral
programme of policy, with support from the government. They implemented industrial
policies, including funding, technological transfers, training and development of the physical
infrastructure. However, during the second and third phases there were contradictions in the
public policies. At sectoral level the lack of public policies hindered innovation during the
first phase. Without a clear policy to stimulate the oil palm activity, there was a strong
uncertainty about the future of the co-operatives in that activity, hindering innovations from
developing new planted areas or from including more families. During the third phase the
lack of direct public policies clearly hindered innovations from improving the performance of
the sector. The decision of supporting the construction of a new extraction mill was not
implemented into a systematic project as in the case of Coopeagropal. The government gave
some support but with isolated instruments, without considering all the critical variables of
performance.
Financial facilities
Financial facilities were part of a systematic approach in order to develop Coopeagropal in
the first phase. Innovations were necessary in order to give the farmers access to credit
facilities. During the second phase, the high profits also gave some financial facilities, which
facilitated several innovations. However, the facilities did not apply all the regions, but solely
the members of the co-operatives. The rest of the farmers did not have the same facilities.
Neither the bank system nor the go vernment policies compensated for the problem. During
the second development phase of the sector, good financial conditions gave the possibility to
innovate in terms of the collaboration scheme, which included several innovations for
training, technical advisement and adequate use of fertilisers.
Knowledge and learning processes
At firm level the knowledge and transfer processes have facilitated innovation processes in
order to improve the performance of several critical variables. For exa mple, the members of
14

the co-operative have reached very good levels of productivity because of the knowledge
they received through the programmes of training and technical advisement. However,
weakness of the knowledge and learning processes has hindered innovations. There is a clear
deficiency on processes for knowledge generation and transmission. In general, the internal
flows of information and flows of knowledge do not respond to a clear strategy, and the cooperative did not invest in developing a knowledge base. It has been very difficult to innovate
in terms of new products because of little knowledge of the prefe rences in the markets and
the difficulties to generate learning processes on this issue. The co-operatives in the palm oil
sector do not have explicit and coherent strategies to improve learning processes. The cooperatives do not have a training system, but only isolated courses which do not apply all key
issues.
Quality of interactions
Feed-back mechanisms defining quality of interactions have been a clear determinant of
innovation processes in the co-operative sector. Some interactions have facilitated the
innovation process but poor interactions have also hindered innovations to improve the
performance of several critical variables. In general, only during the first phase, some
interactions contributed significantly to facilitate innovations. During the other two phases,
quality of interactions has deteriorated. Good quality of interactions has facilitated all the
innovations in the co-operative but, on the contrary, poor interactions have hindered
innovations to handle several key issues.
The sector did not develop clear networks. The different actors only worked together on the
palm oil project (and not on other projects). At firm level the model was a machine
bureaucracy leaded by the ad- hoc committee, but with fragmentary knowledge by the other
actors. At sectoral level all the co-operatives interacted during the first phase with the same
actors and had some interactions with each other, but they did not work on the critical
variables in a co-ordinated way.
During the second phase the organisational model of the sector changed significantly. The cooperatives founded the consortium CIPA and they interacted closely. Thanks to the
collaboration scheme with Coopeagropal, CIPA was able to develop its own programme of
technical advisement for farmers and a system to improve the physical infrastructure. They
also developed a credit system for farmers. During the third phase, the co-operatives
continued the consortium CIPA, but a lot of problems arose. Some of the co-operatives left
the consortium and the interactions inside the consortium were tense. In general, quality of
interactions has been poor at the sectoral level during the whole history of the oil palm
activity in the co-operatives, with the exception of the collaboration scheme during the
second phase. However, that scheme was based on high prices of crude oil. When the price
of crude oil went down, it became evident that it was necessary to improve the quality of
interactions with other actors. But this was not done during the third phase by the new
extraction mill construction.
Performance of the industry
A good performance, in terms of profits and high income due to extraordinary high prices of
the crude oil during the second phase of development of Coopeagropal, facilitated some
innovations. With extra profits the co-operative had funds to pay the innovative systems of
incentives, technical advisement and financial schemes for the farmers. The same applied the
whole sector while the prices were high. However, this situation generated the impression
that the firms were working efficiently, making them reluctant to promote innovation
15

processes improving the performance of other critical variables. One impact was the
reluctance to strengthen the knowledge base.
Path dependency
The way of organising in co-operatives instead of other kind of organisations is a clear
feature of path dependency. At firm level in all the co-operatives of the sector, pathdependency of organisational schemes, collection of routines and broadly defined culture of
the organisation, have also hindered innovations from improving several critical variables of
performance. This is the case with the efficiency of the management system and the weak
systems of knowledge transfer. The co-operatives have followed past schemes hindering
innovation processes from improving the knowledge and learning processes and the
efficiency of the management systems.
The size and degree of affluence to markets
The size and the degree of affluence to markets have hindered innovations in terms of new
products. Normally, there are only very few leading competitors and it is difficult to get into
these markets. Moreover, the national market for such products is too small and the cooperatives have to export, which is quite more difficult than selling in the local market.
The role of the R&D system
The co-operative sector has not developed a R&D system. The interactions with the R&D
organisations have also been poor. The main innovations have not been facilitated by
research and development projects. However, the lack of this kind of system or interactions
with other organisations in the area has hindered innovations, especially at firm level. The
firms have not been able to develop new products or to compete in new markets.
The introduction of cleaner technologies
The co-operative did not develop clear innovations to improve the environmental
performance during the three phases of development. The main factors, which hinder the
introduction of cleaner technologies in the co-operative, are related to institutions or poor
feed-back mechanisms. Institutions hinder innovations, on terms of cleaner technologies, due
to the lack of an environmental management system, centralised decision making processes
with poor participation of employees, organisational culture generating uncertainty about
continuity of projects, poor awareness of environmental issues, middle management inertia,
failure of existing regulatory approaches, and absence of markets of environmentally- friendly
goods in this industry. Poor fed-back mechanisms are related to weak networks promoting the
introductio n of cleaner technologies and poor mechanisms to share information and expertise
and lack of communication in the firm.
6. Policies for the introduction of cleaner technologies
Considering the introduction on cleaner technologies as part of the strategies for the
improvement of performance, there are some policies which would be useful.
? Permanent system of performance evaluation
The weakness of the performance evaluation system is an important barrier to design
strategies in the co-operative sector. The co-operatives have not institutiona lised any system.
They have only partial reports from the managers and the reports do not aim at evaluating all
the key issues of performance. The co-operatives could use a system defining key issues,
critical variables and indicators, as the one deve loped in this thesis. This kind of system
16

would facilitate the design of strategies thanks to the contribution of measuring the gaps
between the actual and the desired situation. The system was tested during the research
process of this thesis and the participants were satisfied. However, the co-operatives have not
continued to use it or any other system.
? Strengthening of innovation systems: towards more efficient collaboration networks
Most of the innovation barriers (including the introduction of cleaner technologies) are
related to the weakness of the innovation system. The main challenge is recovering a
systematic approach promoting innovations which aim at improving the performance of
critical variables. The strategy is based on improving quality of interactions. An important
issue to consider is the development of mechanisms as regards knowledge generation and
transmission. Three areas of action would be: resolving problems of institutions on
technology transfer; improving mechanisms of communication; and improving firm
capabilities of absorbing cleaner technologies.
One important task is to promote joint research projects, with participation of firms and state
agencies as well as universities. The exchange of employees between national and foreign
firms is an useful mechanism. It is necessary to research on the nature of informal flows of
knowledge in the sector with the objective of improving flows of information and
communication channels.
? National research policy
State agencies should promote agreements on research projects involving state and private
research centres, universities and other stakeholders in the palm oil sector (co-operatives,
suppliers, customers, and competitors). The challenge is the generation and the diffusion of
knowledge and technologies. A fundamental objective is the increasing capacity of
technology adaptation in order to fit the specific needs of the co-operatives. A possible
mechanism is that state agencies finance research projects designed by firms or groups of
firms in co-ordination with universities or other research agencies.
? Policies of stimulating innovation and technology transfer
Basically, it is very important to give the co-operatives access to adequate collaboration
networks and to identify relevant information. Training projects and better communication
systems would be useful. Three different types of technology transfer programmes could be
implemented: sharing research outputs from states agencies and universities, identification of
concrete technology necessities in the sector and improvement of communication systems by
means of research centres.
? Information and communication systems
It is important to improve the canals and codes of communication between the producers and
the users of technology. It is suggested that the exchange of experience, opinions and
practical pieces of advice among firms stimulate the technological development. Some
organisational culture changes in the co-operatives may be useful. Focus should be on
stimulation of more efficient communication processes and on elaboration of powerful labour
teams instead of vertical structures of decision making.
? Policies of education and training
Policies of education and training are necessary in order to promote innovations in the sector.
The objective is to improve the capacity of leaders, employees and associates in generating
and adapting useful knowledge. The mechanisms are the implementation of training
17

programmes with periodic evaluations. The programmes must consider the necessary
knowledge of solving critical variables of performance and the most effective mechanisms in
order to transmit the relevant knowledge.
? Transformation of the institutional framework
Part of the problem, by having weak collaboration networks, is due to an inefficient
institutional framework. There are no direct regulations or incentives promoting cleaner
technologies or other kind of innovation processes. No programmes or policies are
stimulating the collaboration networks. On the contrary, state agencies do not co-ordinate
with each other.
? Financial mechanisms
Financial mechanisms are a critical aspect of promoting innovation and technological
transfer. It is also true as regards the introduction of cleaner technologies. State agenc ies and
firms ought to spend more money on both research and development programmes and on
introduction of cleaner technologies. Some kind of policy is necessary in order to stimulate
these project funding. It is also necessary to develop the programmes by making the
processes of getting the funding more efficiently.
? Specific strategies for the co-operatives
The job of the focus groups resulted in a list of specific strategies for the co-operatives. The
general strategy pointed out six elements and nine strategic objectives5 .
The strategic elements were: to improve the knowledge base of the co-operatives by
strengthening collaboration networks; to develop a well-organised department of human
resource management which facilitates efficiency and permanency of employees; to promote
a complete satisfaction of customers; to generate a system evaluating the quality of the
products according to the preferences of the customers; continuous improvements of
production processes and organisation; continuous improvements of environmental
performance.
The strategic objectives were: a) to innovate in products and markets, using a system of
information about the evolution of opportunities in different markets; b) to promote a
sustained growth in plantations and factories, based on appropriate technologies; c) to
generate a system knowing the strategy of competitors, based on indicators from the market
forces and the critical variables of competitiveness; d) to promote continuous improvements
towards optimisation of production and management processes and the mechanisms of
commercialisation; e) to generate a system of information based on the critical variables of
performance; f) to promote an organisational culture of high productivity and satisfaction of
employees); g) to promote continuous improvements of the environmental performance with
the introduction of cleaner technologies and the design of cleaner products; h) to generate
mechanisms in order to strengthen the identity of farmers with the co-operative principles; )
to promote improvements of life quality of farmers and employees.

There is a detailed strategic plan at firm level in Coopeagropal (1999) and at sectoral level in Comisin del
Sector cooperativo palmero (1999).

18

References
Alegre, Napolen (2000). Tendencias generales en el desarrollo de la industria palmera.
Ponencia en Seminario Desarrollo de la actividad palmera en el Sector Cooperativo. Perez
Zeledn, Costa Rica. Marzo.
Bergh, J.C.v.M. van den (1996). Ecological Economics and Sustainable Development,
Cheltenham-Brookfield: Edward Elgar.
Bolaos, Marcos (1998). Proyecto de desarrollo agroindustrial de Coto sur. Instituto de
Desarrollo Agrario, IDA.
Carpio, Arllen (2000). Nuestros sueos en accin. En Coopeagropal: Planta optimismo y
cosecha progreso. San Jos, Costa Rica.
Comisin del Sector cooperativo palmero (1999). Plan de Desarrollo: sector cooperativo
palmero. Documento final. Febrero
Comisin del Sector cooperativo palmero (2000). Anlisis de opciones financieras para el
sector cooperativo palmero, zona Sur. Documento final. Junio.
Comisin del Sector Cooperativo Palmero (2001). Anlisis de opciones financieras para el
sector cooperativo palmero, Zona Sur. Documento de Trabajo.
Conacoop and Progress (1998). Proyecto Construyendo las Ventajas Competitivas para
lograr Polticas Econmicas Estratgicas para el Sistema de Palma Aceitera - Regin
Brunca. Documento final de trabajo.
Coopeagropal (1998). El Palmero. rgano Informativo de Coopeagropal R.L.. Mauricio
Alfaro y Elsy Mndez (eds), Departamento de Comunicacin y Desarrollo Social.
Coopeagropal (1998). Plan Anual Cooperativo. Documento Preparado para el Comit de
Planeacin y Presupuesto. Unidad de Comunicacin y Desarrollo, Noviembre.
Coopeagropal (1999a). Milenium. Documento final de planificacin estratgica.
Coopeagropal (1999b). COOPEAGROPAL: Motor de desarrollo de la regin. Revista.
Coopeagropal (2001). Revisi n del plan estratgico. Documento interno.
Dosi, G (1988). The nature of the innovative process. In G.Dosi et al (eds.).
Edquist, C. and Johnson, B. (1997). Institutions and organisations in systems of innovation,
in C. Edquist (ed.) Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations.
London and Washington: Pinter/Cassell Academic.
Edquist, Charles (ed) (1997). System of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and
Organizations. Pinter, London and Washington.

19

Edquist, C (2001). The Systems of Innovation Approach and Innovation Policy: An account
of the state of the art. Lead paper presented at the DRUID Conference, Aalborg, June 12-15,
2001, under theme F: National Systems of Innovation, Institutions and Public Policies.
Draft.
Edwars, M (1999). NGO Performance -- What Breeds Success? New Evidence from South
Asia. World Development Vol. 27 (2) pp. 361-374.
Ekins, Paul (1993). Making Development Sustainable. In Sachs, Wolfgang (ed). Global
Ecology, A New Arena of Political Conflict. Zed Books, London and New Jersey.
Freeman, C. (1992). The Economics of Hope. Essays on Technical Chnage, Economic
Growth and the Environment, London: Pinter Publ.
Furst (ed) (2000). Cambio Estructural y ambiental en Costa Rica. Editorial FUNA.
Gunningham, Neil & Darren Sinclair (1997). Barriers and motivators to the adoption of
cleaner production practices. Australian Centre for Environmental Law, The Australian
National University.

IDA (1998). Coopeagropal R.L.. En: Revista Proyecto Coto Sur, Elas Soley Carrasco.
Unidad Ejecutora.
INFOCOOP (2001). Problemtica actual en el sector cooperativo palmero y prioridades
para la comisin de trabajo del sector. June.
Instituto Tecnolgico de Costa Rica , (2000). Plan Estratgico 2000-2005 para el sector
Cooperativo Palmero. Convenio INFOCOOP-ITCR. Sede Regional San Carlos. Costa Rica.
Johnson, Bjorn and Bengt-Ake Lundvall (1992). National Systems of Innovation and
Institutional Learning.

Lindegaard, Klaus (1997). State of the Art of Innovation System Analysis. Sudesca Research
paper No.7.
Mondragn, Mayra (2000). Estudio de factibilidad para una planta extractora en Piedras
Blancas. Documento de trabajo CIPA
Munda, G., Nijkamp, P. and P. Rietveld (1994). Qualitative Multicriteria Evaluation for
Environmental Management, in: Ecological Economics, !0:2, 97-112.
Nelson, Richard R. (ed 1993). National Innovation Systems. A Comparative Analysis. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Neumayer, 1999. Weak Versus Strong Sustainability. Explorating the limits of two Opposing
Paradigms. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

20

Nijkamp, P., Ouwersloot, H. and S.A. Rienstra (1997). Sustainable Urban Transport
Systems: An Expert-Based Strategic Scenario Approach, in: Urban Studies, 34:4, 169-203.
Nijkamp, P., Rienstra, S.A. and J.M. Vleugel (1998). Transportation Planning and the
Future, Chichester: John Wiley.
Nijkamp, P., Rietveld, P. and H. Voogd (1990). Multicriteria Evaluation in Physical
Planning, Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Nijkamp, P., S.A. Rienstra and J.M. Vleugel (1997). Transportation Planning and the
Future, John Wiley, Chichester (forthcoming).
OECD (1997a). National Innovation Systems. OECD paper.
Orozco, Jeffrey (1997). Gestin Tecnolgica y Desarrollo Sostenible: Deficiencias del Marco
Institucional y de Polticas en Costa Rica. En Economa y Sociedad. No. 3, Abril.
Orozco, Jeffrey (1999). Innovacin y Desarrollo Sostenible. Ponencia presentada en el
Seminario Innovacin Tecnolgica y Agricultura: los alimentos transgnicos, organizado por
FUNDE, El Salvador.
Orozco, Jeffrey (2000a). Innovacin en el Sector Cooperativo Palmero de Costa Rica.
Documento de trabajo. CONACOOP. July.
Orozco, Jeffrey (2000b). Marco terico para el estudio de procesos de innovacin en forma
sistmica. Documento de trabajo. CONACOOP. July.
Orozco, Jeffrey (2000c). Systems of Innovation and Sustainable Performance at Sector Level
in Central America. Paper presented in Rio 2000 Third Triple Helix International
Conference. Brazil, April.
Orozco, Jeffrey (2001a). Barreras y motivadores para la introduccin de tecnologas ms
limpias en el sector palmero. SUDESCA.
Orozco, Jeffrey (2001b). Lineamientos estratgicos para el fortalecimiento del sector
cooperativo palmero. Documento de trabajo, CONACOOP. May.
Orozco, Jeffrey (2001c). Marco legal e institucional para la introduccin de tecnologas ms
limpias en Costa Rica. SUDESCA.
Orozco, Jeffrey (2001d). Problemtica actual del sector cooperativo palmero y prioridades
para la comisin de trabajo del sector. Documento de trabajo, INFOCOOP. June.
Orozco, Jeffrey (2001e). Systems of innovation and cleaner technologies in the palm oil
sector, Costa Rica. Paper presented at Nelson and Winter DRUID Confe rence, Aalborg
Denmark. June 12-15.
Orozco, Jeffrey (2004). Innovation and performance improvements in the cooperative sector,
Costa Rica. SUDESCA Research Papers No.38. CINPE and Aalborg University.

21

Remmen, Arne (1995). Pollution Prevention, Cleaner Technologies and Industry. In Rip,
Arie Thomas J Misa and Johan Schot (eds). Managing Technology in Society. The Approach
of Constructive Technology Assesment. Pinter Publisher, Lo ndon, UK.
Remmen, Arne (1997). Innovation Concepts and Cleaner Technology: Experience for three
Danish Actions Plans. Paper for 4th European Roundtable on Cleaner Production, November.
Oslo.
Remmen, Arne (1999). Greening of industry. Technological and Institutional Innovations.
SUDESCA, Conference, Costa Rica.
Remmen, A (2001). Greening the Danish Industry., Changes in Concepts and Policies. In
Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, vol 13, No.1.
Remmen, Arne and Smink, Carla. Reforming Environmental Regulation, New Ways to
Accomplish Industrial appropriation of Pollution Prevention. Aalborg University,
Departament of Development and Planning. Denmark.
Rennings (2000). Redefining innovation: eco- innovation research and the contribution from
ecological economics. Ecological Economics. Vol. 32 (2) pp. 319 332.
Rienstra, S. (1998). Options and barriers for sustainable transport policies. A scenario
approach, Rotterdam: The Netherlands Economic Institute.
Robinson, Richard (1988). The international transfer of technology: theory issues and
practice. Cambridge Massachusetts: Ballinger.
Segura, O (1999). Sustainable Systems of Innovation: The Forest in Central America. Ph.D
Thesis. Aalborg University, Denmark.
Siel & Siel (2000). Informe de Responsabilidad Ambiental No. 5 . Planta Extractora y
Refinadora de Aceite, Coopeagropal R.L., Costa Rica.
Sulecio, Francisco. Motor de desarrollo de la regin. En Coopeagropal: Planta optimismo
y cosecha progreso. San Jos, Costa Rica.
Van Zoelen, Wim (1997, 1998, 1999, 2000). COOPOEAGROPAL: Informes de la divisin
industrial a la gerencia.
Van Zoelen, Wim (2000). Industrializacin, eficiencia y calidad. En Coopeagropal: Planta
optimismo y cosecha progreso. San Jos, Costa Rica.
Zalazar, Franklin (2000). COOPEAGROPAL: Informe a la gerencia: divisin de maquinaria.
Zumbado, Jorge (2000). Desarrollo Histrico de Coopeagropal. Ponencia en el simposio de
economa social. San Jos, Costa Rica. Abril
Zysman, John (1994). How institutions create historical rooted trajectories of growth.
Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol 3, n.1.

22

23