Mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIPs) have reached a critical point, facing pressure to demonstrate their effectiveness. Although many countries have adopted MOIPs, evidence of their impact remains largely anecdotal. This report uses a unique database of 101 "net zero missions" and 17 in-depth case studies to assess how MOIPs support national greenhouse gas reduction goals compared to traditional Science, Technology, and Innovation (STI) policies. MOIPs promote broad, ambitious objectives, but their strategies often lack clear focus, measurable targets, and systematic monitoring. While STI authorities have led mission efforts, they need stronger connections to scaling and deployment actors. To move beyond research and innovation, MOIPs require dedicated, multiannual funding and new financial mechanisms to attract private sector investment. However, proactive and flexible portfolio management practices are still underdeveloped, limiting missions' potential to achieve systemic benefits. Despite progress, MOIPs face three main challenges: an overemphasis on technological innovation (STI Trap), weak influence on broader policy (Orientation Trap), and insufficient engagement with private resources (Policy Trap). These challenges highlight the need for a new generation of missions that more closely integrate a broader array of public and private actors and resources to drive transformative change and achieve national net zero targets.
Mission-Oriented Innovation Policies for Net Zero
Abstract
Executive Summary
Conducting thorough analyses of the effectiveness of missions at a critical milestone of this policy approach
Mission-oriented innovation policies (MOIPs) have reached a critical juncture. While still in the early stages of implementation, these policies are already under intense scrutiny to demonstrate their impact and effectiveness. As more countries adopt MOIPs, there remains limited anecdotal evidence on the effectiveness of different designs and practices. Against this backdrop, this report leverages a unique database of 101 “net zero missions” and 17 in-depth case studies to assess the added value of MOIPs in supporting national greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitments, compared to traditional science, technology and innovation (STI) policy approaches.
Setting ambitious goals, but lacking direction
MOIPs encourage the collective development of broad, ambitious goals, engaging a wide array of actors across different sectors. However, despite criticisms of being overly top-down, most missions remain largely bottom-up in practice. Their objectives often lack focus and their target, if any, non-measurable. Their strategic agenda and roadmap are critical in setting negotiated pathways to achieve these objectives but remain indicative and are not systematically used to monitor the progress of their portfolio of activities. To realise their ambitions, missions need to become more outcome-focused, with clear targets and timelines, including intermediate milestones.
Engaging actors and committing resources beyond science, technology and innovation
In almost all cases, STI authorities have taken the lead on missions, acting as champions from the outset. They have successfully convened at the “mission table” diverse actors – including policy makers, regulators and stakeholders from sectors like transport and energy – around a common agenda to align their investment and exchange information on progress. Unlike traditional interministerial and cross-sectoral strategies, which often lack actionable mechanisms and dedicated budgets, missions are associated with specific governance structures and tailored interventions designed to achieve their objectives. However, the participation of sectoral policy and regulatory authorities in the mission’s governance bodies to set mission agendas and align plans has not yet been confirmed by significant commitments in the form of financial resources or mobilisation of their interventions to support the mission portfolio. To significantly “span the boundaries”, missions should incorporate the necessary policy instruments and incentives to scale-up and deploy the solutions they develop. As missions progress, securing formal connections to the large-scale national climate funds and sustainability transition resources is critical to complete the “last mile” of the innovation process.
Providing missions with dedicated multiannual funding to expand beyond research and innovation
Missions generally benefit from longer term and more stable funding than traditional STI initiatives, and their budgets can compare with or even exceed those of climate research and development programmes of similar scope. However, these resources are still insufficient to extend beyond research, innovation and demonstration. Additionally, the fragmentation of a mission’s budget across diverse funding sources hampers its ability to reap its systemic effects and make it contingent on the goodwill of the mission’s partners. A certain level of central, multiannual funding specifically dedicated to the mission is crucial, notably to incentivise partners to allocate resources to specific mission activities, rally new partners, fill potential portfolio gaps, and enable continuous learning and improvement.
Furthermore, very few innovative financial models and funding instruments have been used in net zero missions to raise private funding. There is also a need to design and experiment with new innovative funding mechanisms to increase private engagement in and commitment to the missions.
Improving mission portfolio management for greater impact
Despite their potential, proactive and flexible portfolio management practices necessary to maximise the systemic benefits of missions remain underdeveloped. Mission managers are only beginning to implement practices that exploit the complementarities and synergies between various activities within a consistent portfolio. Barriers to effective portfolio management include a lack of methodologies and criteria for enhancing synergies, inadequate staffing and skills, fragmented funding, conflicting incentives, and restrictive bureaucratic rules. Overcoming these challenges requires investment in the development of the needed capabilities, tools and methods for proactive portfolio management. Acknowledging their specific status, these initiatives should also be granted enhanced strategic flexibility to operate as required to realise their strategic agenda. For all these tasks, high-level political backing and strong and well-resourced dedicated teams at both the MOIP initiative and individual mission levels are needed.
Facing the three main challenges of net zero missions, but ready to overcome them
Overall, the analysis reveals that most net zero missions produce many of the effects outlined in their theory of action. In most cases, they represent a marked improvement over traditional STI policy mixes in terms of the ambition, scope and intensity of the collaboration needed to collectively address the complex challenge of climate change. However, these achievements will not be sufficient to scale-up and deploy these innovations on the massive scale needed to fulfil national net zero targets. Missions need to find their way out of three main challenges – or “traps” – that have emerged at the still early stage of this policy approach:
The STI Trap: Net zero missions must extend their focus beyond technological innovation.
The Orientation Trap: Missions must not only provide targets and strategic agendas but also drive meaningful change in activities and behaviours.
The Policy Trap: Missions need to leverage resources beyond public budgets through greater engagement with private sector resources and capabilities.
Learning our way towards a third generation of missions
These limitations do not invalidate the MOIP approach but instead highlight the need for more fully developed missions, with different designs and additional resources. The vast majority of missions have been launched recently, with only a few years of implementation behind them. This report’s findings call for a new generation of missions that are genuinely transformative, enlisting public actors and policies beyond the STI realm, effecting changes via joint implementation, and crowding in the missions with resources and capabilities from private actors.
