TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE FOSTERING SUSTAINABLE [602228]

TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE FOSTERING SUSTAINABLE
DEVELOPMENT

Sunhilde CUC
University of Oradea
[anonimizat]

Keywords: Sustainable development, Technological paradigm, Environmental innovation, Cleaner
production, Clean technologies

Abstract: This paper presents the concept of sustainable development in correlation with the technological
development. It proposes a definition of the notion of technological paradigm. In the paper concepts from the evolutionary literature on technological change are applied to environment-saving technological change. Our objective is to examine the technology dimension in achieving a sustainable economy. It is argued that
fundamental changes in production processes underpinned by alternative technological trajectories are
necessary for achieving environmental sustainability. Finally we identify some factors that stimulate
sustainable innovation
.

1. INTRODUCTION
Sustainable development has been the subject of diverse definitions from a number of
commentators. As a result, it has come to mean very different things to ecologists,
economists, planners and politicians.
Ecologist researchers have developed two different streams of environmental
modernisation theory. The first stream originate from environmental policy and sociology
and focuses on techno-economic aspects [13] and reveals that technological innovations
are important for relieving environmental burden in the industry.. The second stream has a wider focus and bases on social modernisation theory. [8], [19] At the heart of the debate over the potential effectiveness of sustainable development is
the question of whether technological change can reduce the impact of economic
development sufficiently to ensure other types of change will not be necessary. Industrial leaders have recognised the importance of the environment in which they operate, and
many have pursued a path of implementing voluntary initiatives to reduce the burden on
the environment, taking a more proactive approach, addressing pollution prevention to
stay ahead of legislation.
2. SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT-CONCEPT The subject of sustainable development ranks high on the legislative agendas of most governments, media coverage of the topic has proliferated and sustainability issues are of
increasing concern to humankind. In today’s society, there is a growing interest for. There
are over 100 definitions of sustainability and sustainable development but the image most commonly used to describe sustainable development is that of three pillars, representing
environmental protection, social development and economic growth, which together
support the roof. Sustainability involves the simultaneous concern of economic prosperity,
environmental quality and social equity in particular known as three bottom lines.
Differences in interpretation mostly stem from how each of this three goals of sustainable development are emphasised. As sustainable development is historically a product of the
environmental discussion, the focus has long been on strengthening the environmental
pillar, perceived as the weakest of the thre e. The concern with balancing the needs of
present and future generations – the intergenerational dimension – is also a point of difference. Many, for example, consider it to wrong to make assumptions about future human needs beyond basic biological ones. ANNALS of the ORADEA UNIVERSITY.
Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume IX (XIX), 2010, NR3
3.29

Further, a few interpretations of sustainable development are discussed here. The first is
that provided in the so-called Brundtland Report, which has had a great deal to do with the subsequent popularity of the term. We then take up, in order, the reaction of so-called deep ecologists; and the views of anti-development theorists, who see sustainable
development as simply an ideological mask for old-fashioned development.
The term sustainable development first came to importance in 1987 when the World
Commission on Environment and Development produced a report for the United Nations
called “ Our Common Future ”. This definition of sustainable development – “ development
which meets the needs of the present wi thout compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs " – is commonly referred to as the “original” or
“classic” formulation of the term. It is from this definition that most interpretations of
sustainable development emanate [22]. Since the World Commission on Environment and
Development Report of 1997 was published, corporate managers and management
scholars have been grappling with the question of how and why corporations should
incorporate environmental concerns into their own strategic decision making. And they
have been assuming a positive role in furthering the cause of environmental protection, as opposed to being seen as an environmental problem. Today many companies have
accepted their responsibility to do no harm to the environment.
The environmental ethics and sustainable development approach, believe that the
protection of the environment is the most impor tant aspect of sustainability. According to
this theorist, the Brundtland Report tries to reconcile two irreconcilable objectives. One objective is to revive growth; the other is to avoid environmental degradation. What is
wrong with this is that the "predominant" theory relied on in the Brundtland Report to
assure the achievement of these objectives is indefinite growth . This is incompatible with a
aim of living within natural limits, yet it is never categorically repudiated by the World Commission. But environmental degradation is not excluded by a minimalist approach to sustainable development. The objective of sustainable development is viewed by some
economists and business groups as being only to preserve the environment to the extent
that it is necessary for the maintenance of the economic system. For them future
generations can be compensated for the loss of environmental resources by increased wealth and human capital with wh ich to meet their needs. [1]
According to the critics of sustainable development, the notion of sustainability seems to
be utopian. The term only serves to revitalize development, to give it another lease on life,
by tying it to concerns for the environment. Sachs admits that what he calls “eco-
developers” are in some sense distinguishable from traditional advocates of development–
most obviously in their admission that there are environmental limits on production. However, “ What ties them nevertheless to the economic worldview is the failure to
appreciate cultural limits to the predominance of production, cultural limits that render
production less important and consequently relieve also environmental pressure. ” [21]

The paradigm of “sustainable development” can be viewed also as a new paradigm of
technological development. The use of green technologies should be promoted, although
technological optimism does not escape the need for fundamental social change and a
shift in priorities. The institutional background and environmental instruments providing the
right incentives play an important role in realizing the savings potential and/or the use of clean technologies. Given the medium-term goal of changing the proportions of capital,
labour, and resources as well as the direction of technical progress, economic instruments
have gained in importance, complementing environmental regulations. These instruments,
such as taxation of inputs harmful to the environment, lead in the medium term to the
deployment of other technologies which use less of these production factors, but perhaps require more know-how or labour. In spite of the undeniable diversity of technologies, of ANNALS of the ORADEA UNIVERSITY.
Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume IX (XIX), 2010, NR3
3.30

the unpredictable nature of inventions and of the uncertain and risky nature of commercial
innovations, there is a recognizable logic behind the main trends in technical change. Achieving sustainable economic growth will require changes in industrial processes, in the type and amount of resources used, and in the products which are manufactured. In the
recent years, designing specific aims for su stainability has become a strategic objective for
the entire humanity. This process has to be adapted to each country, according to the demographical national particularities, to the natural environment particularities, to the built
space etc. The essential meaning of sustainability can be reached only by finding the best endogenous pattern of reconciliation between man and nature. [4]
The first steps in the reconciliation with nature include:
• A thorough knowledge of the natural environment and of the interactions between
the social and the economical system and the natural systems, the foreseeing of
the consequences of these interactions on the short and the long term;
• The rational use of the natural resources, disregarding their origin;
• The prevention and the careful elimination of the environmental degradation, be it
man-inflicted or provoked by natural causes;
• The harmonization of the immediate interests with the ones on the long term and
the permanent interests of the human society in the use of the natural factors.
The tools of sustainable development like economic instruments, legislative measures and
consumer demands are aimed at achieving technological changes. Lately, new improved
and eco-friendly technologies have been designed, in the context of sustainability. By
efficiently using sustainability, these technologies have been directed towards diminishing
pollution, towards a better management of the water, soil and earth resources.

3. TECHNOLOGICAL PARADIGM AND TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE
While the meaning and implications of “t echnological change” or “sustainability” have been
interpreted in many ways, there is broad agreement on basic components that have
important implications for environmental assessment design and practice. We propose a
definition of the notion of technological paradigm related to the sustainability stream. The questions of how technological change takes place in the economy and how to
develop a technological policy are old issues of political economy, which have recently
received new interest. Recent analyses have suggested a more articulate approach, using
concepts and categories that have stressed the nature of the 'paradigm' of a technological
system. [5] A distinguishing feature of evolutionary theories on technological change stems from the
used concept of technology. Technologies are not defined in terms of a stylised input-
output relationship, but are seen as being linked with other technologies, economic activities and production and user practices and a whole range of institutions that form a
technological system or regime [15].
From this point of view technology is then defined as
a combination of tools and method to solve problems posed to human individuals and societies by their natural and social environment.
Technological paradigms are a classical concept in the literature on innovation and technological change. The literature on innovation and technological change is marked by
three publications that explicitly built upon Thomas Kuhn ideas to analyzing technological
change and introduced the term “technological paradigm”.
For Johnston (1972), the periodic nature of technological change was empirically
outstanding. For him, a technological paradigm is “ a set of guiding principles generally
accepted by practitioners in a particular field of technology ”. He distinguishes between
paradigms as epistemological (“ a guiding framework for the development of technology ”),
sociological (“ adherence to a paradigm constitutes membership to a community ”), and ANNALS of the ORADEA UNIVERSITY.
Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume IX (XIX), 2010, NR3
3.31

psychological (“ technologists will tend to perceive the world through this framework ”)
concept.[14]
Granberg and Stankiewicz introduced the notion of “technological paradigms” for the
analysis of generic technologies and elaborate in more detail than Johnston what kinds of
activities are conducted in communities of technologist, namely technological research and
functional analyses. For them, a technology can be understood in terms of the function it
performs, the natural processes it exploits, and the design linking these into a functional
whole, “ a “technological paradigm […] denotes a set of beliefs and opinions, held in
common by a sizeable collectivity of practitioners, as to how 'their' technology ought best to be developed ” [11].
The concept of technological paradigms has been developed by Giovanni Dosi (1982) which has been highly influential in the field of the economics of technical change. The
technological paradigm is defined by Dosi as a "model" and "pattern" of solution of
selected technological problems, based on selected principles derived from natural
sciences and on selected material technologies [7]. In contrast to Johnston, Dosi focuses
more on the technology that underlies a paradigm. Although Dosi’s definition of a technological paradigm itself is quite similar to the definition of Johnston, his work contains
a much richer description of normal technological progress. Normal technological progress is driven by a combination of these fractions. Dosi's example is drawn from the
case of semiconductors, where in order to perform a generic task (amplifying and
switching electrical signals) a material technology is selected (silicon semiconductors), which uses specific scientific properties, in order to reach some economic maximization of
performance.
Economics put the technological concept into a changing economic and organizational
environment in which paradigms stepped into a balanced competition for survival. While
there are no steadily competing paradigms in normal scientific change, technological "paradigms" were supposed to behave differently.
One of the key reasons why technological progress often proceeds along certain
technological regime is that the established technology and design has already benefitted
from all kinds of evolutionary improvements, in terms of costs and performance
characteristics, from a better understanding at the user side, and from the adaptation of socio-economic environment to a certain type of technology in terms of accumulated
knowledge, capital costs, infrastructure, available skills, production routines, social norms,
regulations and life styles.[10]
Changes in technological paradigm may be associated with environmental improvements
of the order of several magnitudes, not in the short term but in the longer term when the new system is optimised in ecological terms. Technological innovation can be of two types,
incremental (focused on cost or feature impr ovements in existing processes, products or
services, exploits existing technology, relatively minor changes of processes and products that occur more or less continuously) or radical (focuses on products, processes or
services with unprecedented performance features, explores new technology, creates a
dramatic change that transforms existing markets or industries, or creates new ones,
discontinuous events). From an economic point of view, incremental change lies behind
the general rate of growth of productivity, visible in the aggregate. Most of environmental technological change consists of incremental innovation of existing technologies and the
diffusion of existing technologies that are integrated in existing production modes.
A radical innovation, by contrast, is the introduction of a truly new product or process. In
other words, sustainable innovation involves risk but it also requires structure. While much
can be achieved by “continuing to do better”, it will be far more challenging and rewarding to learn how to [6]: ANNALS of the ORADEA UNIVERSITY.
Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume IX (XIX), 2010, NR3
3.32

− Bring design, smart technologies and the “new economy” together to drive growth in
ways that reflects changing concerns and values of a connected world;
− Support faster and more sustainable development in the developing nations
involves risk but it also requires structure. While much can be achieved by
“continuing to do better”, it will be far more challenging and rewarding to learn how
to;
− Bring design, smart technologies and the “new economy” together to drive growth in
ways that reflects changing concerns and values of a connected world
− Support faster and more sustainable development in the developing nations.
As Mensch (1975) observe, due to the self-contained nature of the trajectories of
incremental change, it is practically impossible for a radical innovation to result from efforts
to improve an existing technology.[18],[23]

3. Drivers of environmental technological change
Today companies need to do much more than develop better, less expensive products
and services than their competitors. They need to add features, improve performance and
be able to quickly launch new products into the marketplace. Technological change was
interlinked with institutional and social change: a shift in regulatory philosophy, pressures
from environmentalists, growing environmental awareness at the supply and demand side, changing managerial perceptions, and the introduction of environmental management
systems to address environmental problems.
Environmental innovations could in principle be defined in two ways: firstly by the effects of
the innovation on the environment and, secondly, by the intention of the innovator to
reduce the environmental impact of processes or products. Innovations that are not driven by a conscious intention to reduce environmental impact may nevertheless have this
quality.
Environmental innovation can be defined as ” innovation that serves to prevent or reduce
anthropogenic burdens on the environment, clean up damage already caused or diagnose
and monitor environmental problems ” [12]. Most of environmental technical change
consists of incremental improvements of existing technologies and the diffusion of
technologies that are integrated in existing.
The deployment of technology systems involves several interconnected processes of
change and adaptation:
• The development of adjacent services;
• The cultural adaptation to the logic of the interconnected technologies;
• The setting up of the institutional facilitators.
Of course, environmental innovations involve many areas of knowledge and many
industrial sectors and may therefore be system ic and complex and also adaptation of the
economic, cultural and institutional environm ent to the requirements of technology systems
is not passive. Even the power of consumers to influence technologies is limited the tendency for
consumers to prefer ecological products has already become evident and cannot be avoid.
Sustainability is nowadays far from only represen ting a slogan for an intelligent marketing
campaign, but has become a primordial condition for the existence of a business on an
extended period of time. In the case in which the consumers are willing to pay more for the
“green” products [16], in the field of the retail selling there are traders who ask for a
certificate (for example Tesco, Marks & Spencer) like the one given in England (through
Carbon Footprint Ltd.) which would be a proof of the manner in which the products are
obtained. In this way, in the future, the product label will also give information about the
energy consumption and the CO
2 consumption during the production process of every ANNALS of the ORADEA UNIVERSITY.
Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume IX (XIX), 2010, NR3
3.33

product. Moreover, regulations in this direction will be given starting with 2010. This will
inevitably lead to a situation in which the pr essure will be put upon the entire production
chain up to the producers of machines and equipments, in what non-polluting products with low energy consumption are concerned. That makes some firms to introducing
systematic environmental purchasing policies, and some are making specific demands on
their suppliers for products that can be recycled. Whilst consumers may influence packaging and some ingredients of products, they are
usually unable to influence more hidden aspects of a product such as whether a retailer or manufacturer uses rail or road transport to transport their goods. Unfortunately they are
unlikely to affect more fundamental production decisions that might lead to clean
technology rather than end-of-pipe techno logies. The end-of-pipe systems may involve
treating water, air, noise and solid wastes. The Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development, OECD, found that most investment in pollution control was being used
for end-of-pipe technologies, with only 20 per cent being used for cleaner production[ 20].

A whole range of technologies are involved from the multitude of biological and chemical systems used for treating water, to filtration systems, cyclones and other barrier systems used for air, acoustic enclosures and baffles and various composting or disposal methods.
However clean technologies are preferable to end-of-pipe technologies because they
avoid the need to extract and concentrate toxic material from the waste stream and deal
with it. [3]
Governments can be a key factor in many industry innovations. It encourage the development and implementation of clean technologies through the use laws and
regulations which cannot be met without technological change or through the use of
economic instruments which are meant to provide a financial incentive for technological
change.

4. CONCLUSION
This paper did a survey some definitions of the concepts of sustainable development, and of technological paradigm and make the link between this based on pattern theory and
formal concept analysis.
The definition of technological paradigm is theoretically appealing, for it captures some fundamental ideas of the philosophy of science such as Thomas Kuhn’s, Dosi’s or
Johnston’s thesis that scientific progress is paradigm-dependent. It also helps clarifying
several key notions such as optimisation, and incremental and radical innovation.
The domain of sustainability comprises the theoretical frame for taking decisions in any
situation in which there is a man / environment rapport, be it the natural, economical or the social environment. In this paper it has been argued that envir onmental sustainability
requires eco-restructuring, that is the de velopment of new technology systems offering
dimension environmental improvements. This raises the question: how to achieve this?
New and sustainable technologies are possibly not initially fully competitive because they
face barriers of entry such as economies of scale, institutional arrangements lack of
information or regulatory frameworks in favour of the established technological regime.
This implies a rationale for government intervent ion aiming to facilitate a transition process
away from unsustainable technological regimes.
Eco-friendly technologies are improbable to appear from a sustainable development
approach that looks for to incorporate the environment as part of the economic system and
so to subordinate it to economic needs. There is a real require to value the environment
apart from and above its input to the economic welfare, to see that environmental quality is
irreplaceable. ANNALS of the ORADEA UNIVERSITY.
Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume IX (XIX), 2010, NR3
3.34

The “Trend Chart on Innovation” launched as part of the European Commission innovation
programme refers to three major categories of instruments for stimulating technological innovation [9]
:
− Promoting an innovation culture includes measures to stimulate creativity, initiative,
taking calculated risks and accepting a certain social, geographic and professional mobility;
− Setting up a favourable context for innovation targets promoting of the development
of innovations, by stimulating both competition and cooperation, and providing
better protection for intellectual and industrial property;
− Reinforcing the ties between research, innovation and markets through creation and
spinning off of innovating companies, stimulation of cooperation with the public
sector, private sector and education.
5. REFERENCES
[1] Bucure șteanu, A., Isar D, (2008).- Dezvoltarea durabil ă-formă de creștere economic ă, Partea a I-a-
concepte și principii de dezvoltare durabil ă, Industria textil ă, vol.59, nr.2, p. 70
[2] Carpenter, S.R. (1991), Inventing Sustainable Technologies , in J. Pitt and E. Lugo, eds., The
Technology of Discovery and the Discovery of Technology: Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference of the Society for Philosophy and Technology (Blacksburg, Va.: Society for Philosophy
and Technology, pp. 481-492.
[3] Cramer, J. & Zegveld, W. C. L., (1991) The Future Role of Technology in Environmental
Management , Futures, 23(5), p. 461.
[4] Cuc, S., (2009), Sustainability – a Major Desideratum for the Producers of Textiles Machines ,
Industria textil ă, vol.66, nr.3, p.78
[5] Cuc, S.; Porav, V. & Tripa, S. (2009). Sustainable Development and the Need for Technological
Revolution 1061-1063, Annals of DAAAM for 2009 & Proceedings of t he 20th International DAAAM
Symposium , ISBN 978-3-901509-70-4, ISSN 1726-9679, pp 531, Editor B[ranko] Katalinic,
Published by DAAAM International, Vienna, Austria,
[6] Dearing,A.(2000) Sustainable Innovation: Drivers and Barriers World Business Council for
Sustainable Development, Geneva, http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/24/34/2105727.pdf
[7] Dosi, G (1982), Technological Paradigms and Technological trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation
of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , Research Policy , 6, 1982, page 152
(original italics).
[8] Hajer, M.A. (1995). The politics of economic discourse. Ecological modernisation and the policy
process , Oxford
[9] EC (2002)- European Trend Chart on Innovation , European Commission , Enterprise Directorate-
General,http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/innovation/pdf/library/trendchart_en.pdf
[10] Fisher K., Johan Schot (editors)( 1993), Environmental Business Strategies: International
Perspectives on Research and Policy Implications, Washington, Island Press,pp 79-113
[11] Granberg, A., Stankiewicz, R.,(1981), The Development of Generic Technologies – The Cognitive
Aspects , in: Grandstrand, O., Sigurdson, J. (Eds.), Technological and Industrial Policy in China and
Europe. Research Policy Institute, Lund, pp. 196-224.
[12] Hemmelskamp, J. (1997), Environmental policy instruments and their effect on innovation , European
Planning Studies, 5(2):177-193
[13] Jänicke, Martin (2000). Ecological Modernization: Innovation and Diffusion of Policy and Technology.
Berlin
[14] Johnston, R. D. (1972), The Internal Structure of Technology , in: Halmos, P., Albrow, M. (Eds.), The
Sociological Review Monograph 18 – The Sociology of Science, J.H. Brookes Printers Limited,
Keele, , pp.117-130.
[15] Kemp, R., J. Schot and R. Hoogma, (1998) Regime Shifts to Sustainability through Processes of
Niche Formation. The Approach of Strategic Niche Management , Technology Analysis and Strategic
Niche Management 10, pp. 175-195.
[16] L.E.K. Consulting Carbon Footprint Report 2007 (2008), Carbon Footprints and the Evolution of
Brand-Consumer Relationships, United Kingdomm 40 Grosvenor Place , SW1X 7JL, Vol1, London
[17] Matthews, M., (1985), A Critical Discussion of the Technological Paradigms and the Technological
Trajectories Thesis . University of Sussex, Science Policy Research Unit, Mimeo, p.153
[18] Mensch, G. (1975), Das Technologische Patt , Umschau, Frankfurt, ANNALS of the ORADEA UNIVERSITY.
Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume IX (XIX), 2010, NR3
3.35

[19] Mol, Artur. P.J. (2001). Ecological Modernis ation and the Global Economy. Paper presented at the
Nordic Environmental Research Confererence,
[20] OECD-Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, (1989) Economic Instruments for
Environmental Protection, OECD, Paris.
[21] Sachs, W. (1988), The Gospel of Global Efficiency: On Worldwatch and Other Reports on the State
of the World” , IFDA [International Foundation for Development Alternatives] Dossier 68, November-
December, p.6
[22] United Nations, (1987), Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our
Common Future , General Assembly Resolution 42/187, 11 December 1987
[23] Wiebe E. Bijker, Thomas P. Hughes and Trevor J. Pynch (editors)( 1987), The Social construction of
Technological systems. The MIT Press, Cambridge/Mass, p. 135
[24] ***Perspectives on Research and Policy Implications , Washington, Island Press, 1993, pp 79-113

ANNALS of the ORADEA UNIVERSITY.
Fascicle of Management and Technological Engineering, Volume IX (XIX), 2010, NR3
3.36