In the debate which followed the MIT models of the 1970s on the limits to growth (Meadows et al, 1972), two opposing parties were formed: the ‘pessimists’ (arguing for the ‘zero growth’) and the ‘optimists’ who included the SPRU and Freeman himself. The latter claimed that growth could and should continue into the 21st century provided two conditions were met: the implementation of a set of institutional changes favouring a different world development path; and the reorientation of the R&D system with a shift in the rate and direction of technical change to secure the first objective. More than two decades later, it is quite surprising to check the actuality of Freeman’s vision (Freeman, 1992). That vision comprised the global dimension of the problems involved, the complexity of the solutions, the role of technological innovation in several domains (products, processes, technologies, organisational forms, and the workings of firms and cities) and the role of policies, but also the need for changing lifestyles and public opinion, in both advanced and developing countries. To sum up, Freeman anticipated the transition to a new techno-economic paradigm. However, it is also surprising to note the relative absence of this issue from the economics of innovation core (or innovation studies) until recently. Meanwhile, a new domain has emerged on the subject of transition(s) towards sustainability (see Markard, Raven and Truffer, 2012; Schot and Geels, 2007; Smith, Voß, and Grin, 2010). Recent reflection within the innovation economics field, however, has stressed the relevance of the environmental issue. The first author to be mentioned is Carlota Perez (2013), who wrote: “Both the planet and the economy need extensive ‘green’ innovation. The potential is there in technological terms. (…) Markets alone cannot reach that outcome; an active government can” (Perez, 2013, p. 97). The pressure on natural resources, including energy, caused by the economic rise of a number of countries is among the big issues, in the perspective of the constraints and eventual opportunities for developing countries. The second author is Luc Soete, who claimed that there is an excessive creative destruction, a “short-termism” of the creative destruction. He critically mentioned the post-war growth, in which “professional-use driven” innovation has continuously fed the creation of monopolistic profits through planned obsolescence and an unsustainable consumer growth, what he calls “our ecologically unsustainable, innovation-led consumerism growth path” (Soete, 2013, p.136). More recent studies offer comprehensive views on the way innovation can contribute the sustainability issue: Perez (2015), Laestadius (2015), Mazzucato and Perez (2015), and Stern (2015), just to mention a few. Perez argues that green growth will be favoured by the unexploited potential of ICT and will take place on the deployment stage of the present techno-economic paradigm (Perez, 2015). She argues that innovative solutions will bring about sustainable growth and job creation, avoiding the pessimistic scenarios of de-growth and zero growth (Jackson, 2009; Latouche, 2007). In the same line, Mazzucato and Perez (2015) defend the centrality of innovation in the new era of growth. Drawing on the above-mentioned contributions, the paper analyses four major challenges of an integrated and policy-oriented approach of innovation and sustainability. First, the need and viability of a shift in the direction of technological change, towards a resource-saving trajectory rather than a labour saving trajectory, which characterized the economic history of advanced countries since the XIX century (Frey and Osborne, 2017; Ford, 2015). Second, the need to adopt a critical perspective (Soete, 2013), taking into account the two faces of innovation: economic prosperity and excessive creative destruction. The latter is used as a competitive weapon and a means of creating new markets. Consumerism, which is partly stirred by shortened innovation cycles, exerts a tremendous pressure on finite resources. Third, the centrality of institutional innovation, as Freeman stressed (1992), at least as important as technological innovation in the transition to sustainable growth, from the point of view of both environment and social cohesion. Fourth, and most important, the crucial role of government action (Mazzucato, 2014) to influence the direction of technological change and the creation of adequate innovation, relying on a vast array of policies to promote green growth, with a focus on innovation policy. An analysis of how EU policies address innovation and sustainability will be presented.

--

inovação,sustentabilidade