Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/rser

Barriers and drivers for technology commercialization by SMEs in the Dutch T

sustainable energy sector
L.L.J. Meijer∗, J.C.C.M. Huijben, A. van Boxstael, A.G.L. Romme
School of Industrial Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: To enable the transition to renewable and sustainable energy systems, Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
Sustainability transition (SMEs) can successfully commercialize new technologies, yet doing so is highly challenging. Moreover, gov-
SMEs ernmental policy makers tend to support measures for early-stage ventures or university spin-offs, based on the
Technology commercialization assumption that sustainable energy technologies primarily arise from early-stage technology development.
Barriers
Attention has recently been shifting to SMEs, which can help accelerate the energy transition. By combining a
Drivers
literature review with an explorative multiple case study of 20 SMEs in the Dutch sustainable energy sector, this
article identified barriers and drivers for technology commercialization by SMEs. A country-specific barrier is the
large consumption of natural gas by Dutch households, which strongly inhibits the successful scale-up of new
technologies. The study found several managerial, financial, technological and policy-related barriers and dri-
vers which affect technology commercialization of sustainable energy technologies by SMEs. These barriers and
drivers were further assessed in an actor-based analysis, which suggests that the various barriers and drivers
arise from the interactions between policy makers, industry partners and end-users. The paper also discusses the
policy implications of the barriers and drivers identified, and outlines several challenges for future research.

1. Introduction
Over the past decades, European citizens, governments, firms, and
academics have become increasingly aware of the renewable and sus-
tainable energy transition [1,2]. Firms offering renewable energy so-
lutions tend to experience greater obstacles than other firms, and
therefore governmental institutions often offer support. Although gov-
ernmental bodies have been developing and implementing investment
programs for research and development of sustainable energy tech-
nologies [3,4], there is little knowledge about which policies are sui-
table and effective. Policy makers tend to (unintentionally) favor a
particular type of firms, such as early-stage ventures [5] or university
spin-offs [6–9], based on the assumption that sustainable energy tech-
nologies arise from early-stage technology development only.
Recently, the attention has been shifting to small- and medium-sized
enterprises (SMEs), since these can provide sustainable energy solutions
that are already demonstrated by means of initial commercial successes
[10]. SMEs are typically older than 3 years, have between 10 and 250
fte staff [11], and can sell (new) products to their existing customer
base in local markets [12].
Despite the attention shift, governmental policy makers are still
reluctant to support SMEs as these firms are often more prone to failure
due to their small size and sensitivity to environmental change [13],
with unexpected environmental fluctuations putting severe pressures
on their low levels of slack resources [14]. However, many SMEs have
demonstrated to be able to commercialize sustainable technologies
[15], by developing new products in laboratories as well as creating
new organizational forms and business models [16]. This capability
means that SMEs are (largely overlooked) cradles for technology com-
mercialization in the renewable energy market.
While previous studies have investigated technology commerciali-
zation by SMEs, further research is needed especially with regard to
renewable energy [17]. This paper aims to revise the prevailing per-
spective on SMEs in the energy transition (cf. [18]), by investigating the
inhibiting as well as facilitating factors (i.e. barriers and drivers) of
SMEs’ technology commercialization efforts in the Netherlands, which
provides an interesting context from the point of view of the ongoing
sustainability transition [19,20]. Despite many efforts to push the sus-
tainability transition in this country [21], this transition has remained
rather slow, partly due to various policy changes and lack of

∗
Correspondence to: School of Industrial Engineering, Innovation, Technology, Entrepreneurship & Marketing Group, Atlas 6.401, Eindhoven University of
Technology, P.O. Box 513, MB Eindhoven, the Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: l.j.meijer@tue.nl (L.L.J. Meijer), j.c.c.m.huijben@tue.nl (J.C.C.M. Huijben), a.v.boxstael@tue.nl (A. van Boxstael),
a.g.l.romme@tue.nl (A.G.L. Romme).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.05.050
Received 6 June 2018; Received in revised form 16 May 2019; Accepted 21 May 2019
Available online 30 May 2019
1364-0321/ © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
L.L.J. Meijer, et al.
governmental support [22–24]. So far, few policy makers turn to re-
search evidence to better understand the role of SMEs in commercia-
lizing sustainable energy technology [25,26].
To investigate SMEs' barriers and drivers, this study reviews the
literature on barriers and drivers in the renewable energy market and
extends these general insights with a study of twenty SMEs in the
Netherlands. The results include a list of barriers and drivers for SMEs.
Four barriers appear to be highly disadvantageous to an SME's tech-
nology commercialization effort: limited financial resources, technolo-
gical complexity of energy solutions, high market competition caused
by incumbent players, and low legitimacy of renewable energy solu-
tions. By contrast, several drivers may improve an SME's position: ex-
ternal financial investment, management having strong entrepreneurial
abilities, early-stage prototyping and piloting, and legitimizing sources
such as an official ‘stamp’ for product quality. An actor-based analysis
of SME barriers and drivers further highlights the role of policy makers,
industry partners and end-users.
By investigating the barriers and drivers of SMEs in the renewable
energy market, this study contributes to the growing literature in this
area. More specifically, this study shows that government can help
improve the contribution of SMEs to the energy transition, especially
via policy measures such as performance audits and network access.
The next section provides a review of the Dutch energy landscape,
including its energy mix and relevant stakeholders. The third section
then explains the procedures for data collection and analysis, involving
both a literature review and empirical data collection. The Results
section describes the main barriers and drivers for technology com-
mercialization by SMEs in the Dutch sustainable energy sector. Finally,
the last section serves to discuss the main findings and outline several
challenges for future work in this area.
2. The Dutch energy landscape
2.1. The Dutch energy mix
The Netherlands is (still) a significant producer of natural gas and
serves as a major transit and trade hub for electricity from coal and gas
– especially for neighboring countries [27,28]. In the coming years,
natural gas extraction from soil needs to decrease substantially in
compliance with regulations in the area of safety and risk mitigation,
intended to prevent further earthquakes in the Northern regions of the
Netherlands [29]. Yet, a huge potential to implement renewable energy
technologies remains, as the share of renewable power was 10.5% in
2017, surprisingly lower than the 12.1% in 2016 [30,31]. The Neth-
erlands is a densely populated country that already has 20% of its
territory located below sea level, which tends to demotivate the im-
plementation of renewable energy technologies on land [32].
2.2. Actors in the Dutch energy landscape
The Dutch power sector has an unbundled structure [33], with eight
Distribution Services Operators (DSOs), a separate Transmission System
Operator (TSO), more than 25 producers, and 35 electricity retailers. In
2011, this power system served about 8 million delivery points, with a
total grid length of 2200 km distributed over 51 electrical high voltage
substations [31].
The Dutch government and its various agencies are important actors
in transitioning the Dutch power sector toward a more sustainable
system of energy production and consumption. The overall responsi-
bility for Dutch energy policy (including energy efficiency) lies with the
Ministry of Economic Affairs, which develops policies for renewable
energy, energy transition, research and development (R&D) programs,
and demonstration projects. The Ministry is also involved in the plan-
ning of large scale energy projects. The Ministry of the Interior and
Kingdom Relations regulates the energy efficiency of buildings. Several
other organizations such as the Dutch Office of Energy Regulations and
115
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126
the Netherlands Independent Post and Telecommunication Authority
have the authority to supervise electricity and natural gas markets as
well as district heating markets [27].
Several centers are conducting research on the development of the
Dutch energy market. Examples are Energy Research Centre of the
Netherlands [34], Environmental Assessment Agency [35], and Statis-
tics Netherlands [36]. To support the energy transition, the Netherlands
Enterprise Agency implements R&D policies and funds programs for
sustainability, innovation and international co-operation. It facilitates
the set-up of training and certification facilities and supports public-
private innovation contracts [37]. R&D is also supported by the Neth-
erlands Organization for Scientific Research and many universities
[38,39], and is stimulated by international collaboration initiatives like
Horizon 2020, Euratom, and Strategic Energy Plan [27,40].
2.3. Governmental policies
The Dutch government has acknowledged the impact of the energy
sector on greenhouse gas emissions [41] and has taken various policy
measures. The Ministry of Economic Affairs created the so-called ‘Top
Sector Energy’ to stimulate cooperation between industry, academia,
government and society [42] in areas such as offshore wind, energy and
industry, urban energy, and new gas [42]. A national climate agree-
ment was enacted in 2017 to ensure a 55% emission reduction (from
production and consumption) by 2030, which implies the closure of at
least one coal plant by 2021 and all remaining coal plants by 2030,
making more locations available for offshore windfarms, and prohi-
biting new homes to connect to the traditional gas infrastructure
[27,43].
The Dutch government also supported private-public partnerships
for renewable energy and aimed to reduce non-economic barriers for
renewable energy technologies [27]. This was done by creating a
number of investment and production subsidy programs to stimulate
demand for sustainable energy technologies like solar and wind, which
require high up-front investment [20,23,44]. Many subsidy arrange-
ments have strongly fluctuated over time, leading to high levels of
uncertainty. In this respect, the IEA recommends to grow the local
supply and consumption of renewable energy, acknowledging the im-
portance of SMEs [45].
Dutch SMEs account for 67% of Dutch import from other European
countries and 66% of intra-European export [46] and are thus an es-
sential part of the Dutch economic performance [19].
In this respect, the European Commission has argued that policy
measures in The Netherlands and other European countries can grow
the competitiveness and resilience of SMEs by supporting the difficult
transition from R&D to the demonstration and commercialization stage
[47,48]. From 2013 onwards, the Dutch government therefore has been
taking initial steps to involve SMEs producing sustainable technologies
in the Top Sector Energy [42]. However, the exact role of SMEs in
commercializing energy technologies has remained rather unclear. This
study aims to uncover the barriers and drivers during the commercia-
lization of sustainable energy technologies by Dutch SMEs.
3. Method
3.1. Research design: case studies in the Dutch renewable energy market
This study draws on a multiple-case study approach, involving the
collection and analysis of qualitative data [49]. The goal is to extend
existing theories of barriers and drivers in the renewable energy
market. Therefore, this study first draws on a literature review [49,50]
and then proceeds with the case study.
L.L.J. Meijer, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126

Table 1
Literature review of barriers and drivers for commercializing sustainable energy: studies selected.
Themes Barriers Drivers

SMEs Cagno, Worrell, Trianni, & Pugliese, 2013; Kaufmann & Tödtling, 2002;
Pihkala, Ylinenpaa, & Vesalainen, 2002; Tiwari & Buse, 2007.
Sustainable energy Cagno, Worrell, Trianni, & Pugliese, 2013; Engelken, Römer, Drescher,
Welpe, & Picot, 2016; Karytsas & Choropanitis, 2017; Kowalska-Pyzalska,
2017; Polzin, 2017.
European context Cagno, Worrell, Trianni, & Pugliese, 2013; Karytsas & Choropanitis, 2017;
Kaufmann & Tödtling, 2002; Pihkala, Ylinenpaa, & Vesalainen, 2002;
Tiwari & Buse, 2007.
Literature reviews Engelken, Römer, Drescher, Welpe, & Picot, 2016; Kowalska-Pyzalska,
2017; Polzin, 2017.
Cagno, Worrell, Trianni, & Pugliese, 2013; Foxon et al., 2005.
Cagno, Worrell, Trianni, & Pugliese, 2013; Darmani, Arvidsson, Hidalgo, &
Albors, 2014; del Río, Peñasco, & Mir-Artigues, 2018; Karytsas & Choropanitis,
2017; Engelken, Römer, Drescher, Welpe, & Picot, 2016; Polzin, 2017;
Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2017.
Cagno, Worrell, Trianni, & Pugliese, 2013; Darmani, Arvidsson, Hidalgo, &
Albors, 2014; del Río, Peñasco, & Mir-Artigues, 2018; Foxon et al., 2005.
Darmani, Arvidsson, Hidalgo, & Albors, 2014; Engelken, Römer, Drescher,
Welpe, & Picot, 2016; Kowalska-Pyzalska, 2017; Polzin, 2017.

Table 2 and a lack of knowledge and experience in marketing and commu-

Overview of interviewed firms per sector. nication [44,51,52]. Moreover, SMEs have difficulties with registering
Sector Market Founding year Staff (fte)
patents, secrecy requirements and Intellectual Property related com-
petition [26,44,51,54]. The most important driver for sustainable en-
1 RRA Solar Cells Testing 2008 10 ergy commercialization is the availability of complementary resources,
2 ITV Solar Cells Appliances 2003 1Fa such as knowledge or capital, which are needed for exchanging value in
3 SLC Solar Cells Layer technology 2011 25
4 STF Solar IPV Building Integrated PV 2002 32
the commercialization process [51,52,54,55,57,58]. In addition, a
5 HYS Solar IPV Building Integrated PV 2012 15 showcase in the form of, for instance, a prototype serves to demonstrate
6 SCX Solar Panels Building Integrated PV 2003 14 the potential of the innovation and can contribute to the firm's com-
7 TSS Solar Panels Offshore 2008 26 mercialization position [26,51,54,55,57,58]. The literature review also
8 VDS Solar Panels Regular 2014 13
points out that financial investment can drive sustainable technology
9 SLH Solar PVT BIPV – Thermic 2010 2Fa
10 SLS Solar PVT Heat boiler 2006 14 commercialization by SMEs [26,44,51–53] and firms in the sustainable
11 SNC Solar PVT Concentrated PV 2005 2Fa energy sector in general [55–58].
12 TPS Solar PVT Heat Pump 2009 8Fa
13 SHT Smart Grids Energy Services 2003 70
14 LCM Smart Grids Substation automation 1983 40
3.2.2. Interviews
15 RNR Heat Heat Pump 1997 25 The interview sample consisted of 20 SMEs in the Dutch renewable
16 HMT Heat Heat Pump 2009 1Fa energy sector, selected through the website of the Dutch Chamber of
17 HST Biofuels B2B Biogas 1991 120 Commerce. Initially, a population of 12 SMEs from the solar industry
18 NDS Biofuels Fuel Cells 1999 45
(i.e. solar cells, solar panels, solar IPV, and solar thermic) was selected
19 INA Smart Homes Clean Air 1993 40
20 DCD Smart Homes Smart Products 1983 51 [20]. Because solar technologies may have specific R&D trajectories
supported by technology-specific governmental subsidies, the sample
a
F: The number stated, plus an additional number of flexible workers. was complemented with renewable and sustainable technologies other
According to WEA (2014), a large company consists on average of 50% flexible than solar ̶ to obtain findings that can be better generalized. The ori-
personnel. Smaller firms tend to have much more flexible staff capacity. The ginal sample of 12 SMEs was thus extended with 8 SMEs in other fields
four SMEs with flexible workers in this table draw on average 8-10 fte's in of sustainable energy (especially biomass, smart grids, heating), re-
flexible staff capacity per company [59].
sulting in a total sample of 20 SMEs. Half of this sample of SMEs had
less than 15 employees, and the other half employed between 20 and
3.2. Data collection 120 people. Table 2 provides an overview of the firms interviewed.
Data was collected between February 2017 and July 2017. All semi-
3.2.1. Literature review structured interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. To avoid
For the literature review, several academic journals were consulted. bias, each interview started with an open query for the barriers and
The selection of articles was based on the combination of the following drivers for technology commercialization perceived by the interviewee.
three criteria: the selected study had to simultaneously address (1) These perceptions refer to what actually (de)motivates entrepreneurs,
SMEs, (2) sustainable energy, and (3) one or more countries in Europe. and are largely ignored in public policies regarding innovation and
The third criterion was formulated because Dutch energy policy is technology commercialization. Moreover, prevailing theories of SME
partly subject to the European legal system. The set of selected studies behavior primarily draw on perceptions, also in the literature on re-
includes a number of literature reviews, mainly in the journal newable energy commercialization [60–63]. Some additional questions,
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, as well as empirical stu- informed by the literature review, were subsequently raised about
dies in journals such as Energy Policy, Energy Procedia, Technovation, barriers and drivers during different phases of technology development
Journal of Cleaner Production, Technological Forecasting and Societal (from R&D to commercialization). Appendix A contains the interview
Change, Entrepreneurship & Innovation Management, and Technology guide.
& Innovation Management. Table 1 provides an overview. To ensure the internal validity of the results, a qualitative research
The literature review suggests various barriers and drivers for method was adopted [49], following standard requirements for data
commercializing sustainable energy. The barrier most often discussed triangulation to validate the findings across different data sources. The
in the literature concerns the complexity of the technology, as several barriers and drivers identified in the literature review were triangulated
studies observe that technological know-how is often lacking with the interview data. Moreover, the interview data was triangulated
[26,44,51–55]. A lack of financial resources is another barrier com- with secondary data to ensure the validity of the claims made by re-
monly found in the literature. Some studies have addressed this barrier spondents. Sources of secondary data included company websites, an-
for SMEs [44,51–53] and other studies with regard to the sustainable nual reports, newspaper articles, and (e.g. company) presentations
energy sector [54–56]. Regarding SMEs, the literature review also re- [64]. Drafts of interview transcripts and reports were further validated
veals that SMEs struggle with a shortage of qualified personnel [51–53] by sending them to the interviewees, inviting their feedback to assure

116
L.L.J. Meijer, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126

that the raw data was registered and interpreted correctly [49]. Table 3
Barriers compared with literature (keywords represent the second order codes).
3.3. Data analysis Barrier Keywords Literature

The interview data were analyzed using a procedure involving two 1 Limited financial Subsidy process: unfair, slow [44,51,53,56]
resources Liquidity, production, justice [44,52–56]
coding cycles [65–67]. In the first coding cycle, the first author read the
2 Complexity of Technological know-how [26,44,51–55]
transcripts and formed codes based on the (barriers and drivers) and the technology
themes observed in the literature review. To improve coding reliability, 3 Short-term planning Long term [44,54]
an independent researcher who did not participate in the interviews Project-based [51–53]
double-coded the interview transcripts [64,67]. The two coders subse- 4 Risk averseness Investment [51,52,55]
Technology [56]
quently discussed and resolved the differences between the coding re-
Competition (patent) [26,51,54]
sults; in several instances, initial coding differences regarding a parti- 5 Time-waste Lack of time [44,52]
cular text phrase were resolved by comparing the interview data with Uncertainty [54]
secondary data on the issue at hand. This first coding cycle resulted in a Lack of personnel [51,53,55,57]
Lacking regulations [44,51,52]
preliminary list of barriers and drivers.
Unfairness, Market protection [26,44,53,56]
The second coding cycle focused on identifying relationships among 7 Firm accountability Value chain, fuzzy market [44,51,52,54,55]
codes. At this point, one of the authors proposed a number of axial Communication differences [51,52,68]
relationships, while two others played the ‘devil's advocate’ by ques- 8 Limited attention to end Involvement, customer focus [26,56]
tioning and further exploring the proposed connections [65]. This users
9 High market Product efficiency [51,52]
served to aggregate the list of barriers and drivers arising from the first
competition expectations
cycle into higher-level labels, and thus enabled the construction of a Gas-dominated market (no [26,54,56]
final list of barriers and drivers. This final list is given in the first two market fit)
columns of Tables 3 and 4. The keywords listed in both tables represent Market pricing [26,51,52,54]
the second-order codes related to the first-order codes in the first Lack of market know-how [44,51,52,55]
10 Deficient Legitimacy Trust and understanding [44,55,56]
column. As will be discussed in the Results section, the second-order Acceptance by value chain [44,51]
codes identified in the coding procedure are, in turn, linked to the Cultural differences [56]
findings from the literature review. The coding procedure thus involved
an iterative process of going back and forth from interview to literature
data. two people at work to provide the judge with the required information.’
Finally, an actor-based analysis was conducted, following Kangas, Although applying for and obtaining subsidies can help build a
Lazarevic and Kivimaa [61] who argued that an in-depth analysis of stronger financial portfolio, the interview data suggests that many SMEs
barriers should account for the different actors operating in the business experience barriers in accessing and managing subsidies for technology
ecosystem. Thus, the list of drivers and barriers arising from the coding development.1 The subsidy process is often time-consuming, involving
procedure was analyzed in function of the various actors in the business administrative activities that slow down the development of the focal
ecosystem. This analysis served to identify four relevant actor groups: technology, as interviewee ITV states:
(1) the SME with its technology; (2) the market with its end-user; (3)
‘(…) you become very grumpy when you see how long the journey
industry partners; and (4) the government. The analysis also demon-
takes. Very grumpy. In the end, we received all the subsidy we re-
strates how each of these four actors is key to understanding the con-
quested. It's just that we started two years ago, applying for EFRO
nections between barriers and drivers [61].
[European subsidy for innovation and research], but we got it half a
year ago. And yes, the market opportunity then is gone, it's too late.’
4. Results
Moreover, some SMEs considered the subsidy process as rather
This study aims to analyze the barriers and drivers for technology unfair. Governmental agencies are perceived to favor early-stage tech-
commercialization experienced by SMEs in the renewable energy nology development, rather than subsidizing technology projects of
market. This section provides an overview of the drivers and barriers SMEs which tend to be more mature and beyond the proof-of-concept
arising from the interviews, and relates each of them to findings from stage. So, deficient subsidy arrangements often constrain SMEs in
the literature review. growing and upscaling the technology, which often causes very pro-
mising offerings to be cut off. Prior research referred to this barrier as
4.1. Barriers ‘bureaucratic hurdles’ [51], ‘policy barriers’ [68], ‘lack of funds’ [52],
‘financial barriers’ [51,53], and ‘high upfront investments’ [54].
Fig. 1 provides an overview of the barriers and reports their fre-
quencies. For example, the barriers ‘limited financial resources’ and
‘high market competition’ were mentioned in 19 of the 20 interviews 4.1.2. Risk averseness
(95%). The remainder of this section explains and elaborates the bar- Some SMEs hesitate to push for technology commercialization, due
riers identified. to the high risks involved. When referring to these risks, interviewees
did not only refer to financial risks, but also to technological, reputa-
4.1.1. Limited financial resources tional and legal risks. As banks and investors tend to ask high interest
For SMEs to move beyond the R&D stage and successfully com- rates for bank loans [51,52] and need evidence of the technological and
mercialize R&D outcomes, financial viability and fungible financial economic feasibility of the project before approving funds [53], SMEs
resources are important assets. Yet, some SMEs in the sample lacked the appear to be reluctant to engage in high-risk projects. In addition, since
required financial resources for moving to mass production of the many (e.g. large) incumbent firms try to maintain the status quo [54],
technology or for going through legal procedures, such as patent liti-
gations, needed to secure their market position. For example, inter- 1
Customers of SMEs (i.e. the end-user) can also get financial aid for sus-
viewee RRA (see Table 2) observed that when a competitor violated one tainable technologies, in the form of tax advantages or external support [53].
of the firm's patents ‘you can start a case and that costs a lot of money Here, we mainly focus on the financial barriers to technology development in
and the outcome is uncertain; and in the meantime, you'll soon have SMEs. For the client side: see the barrier ‘subsidies and regulations’.

117
L.L.J. Meijer, et al. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126

Table 4
Drivers compared with literature (keywords represent the second order codes).
Drivers Keywords Literature

1 Financial investment Applied for: starting capital - product development, liquidity - tranches - risk investment - commercialization – patent [26,44,51,55–58]
Support perseverance – entire project [57]
2 Staff Qualified (certified) – more fte – skilled workers [57,58]
3 Knowledge Implicit (tacit) knowledge [44,55,58]
Explicit knowledge [44,57]
4 Technology focus Convergent thinking – choose strategy [26,55]
5 Commercialization speed Ambitious deadlines [54–56,58]
6 Stamp of technology Proof of concept [55,57,58]
Investment [44]
Patent*
Measurements/certificate*
7 Prototypes and pilots Feature improvement *
Rapid prototyping – quotation [55,57]
Demonstration – testing [26,51,54,55,57,58]
8 Reputation of company Experience (employees, company age) [57]
Branding (network) [57]
9 Network Complementary resources (knowledge, capital) [51,54,55,57,58]
Institutional change [51,57,58,65,75]
10 Entrepreneur as pivotal figure Leader – coach [51,55,56]
Salesman - market knowledge [44,57,58]
Long term planning [44,55]
Out-of-the-box thinking – vision [57]
Providing building blocks [26,44,51,55–58]

*Note: any empty row in the Literature column implies that keywords on the corresponding row were not used or identified in the articles of the literature review.

Fig. 1. Barriers to commercializing sustainable energy technology.

SMEs perceive the risk of failure to be quite high.
4.1.3. Short-term planning
Some SMEs in the interview sample missed a long-term plan or vi-
sion on how to commercialize the technology [54]. Technology devel-
opment appears to be mostly managed in an adhoc project-based
manner. Yet, interviewees indicated it is becoming increasingly difficult
to work in a project-based manner when the number of employees
grows. SMEs thus need to develop know-how on project management
and integrate it in the SME's long term planning [51]. According to
interviewee SOL:
‘What is missing is a long-term strategy. That's just the culture in the
Netherlands. That is always missing here.’
barrier in commercializing technology. Technological complexity re-
quires SMEs to hire highly skilled engineers. Yet, SME-entrepreneurs
themselves need to have a profound understanding of the technology,
to be able to convince lead customers and other stakeholders about its
commercial value. However, there are few business-oriented en-
trepreneurs with engineering expertise or engineers with en-
trepreneurial skills, which inhibits the upscaling of complex innova-
tions [68].
Prior research has also identified the barrier of technological com-
plexity, suggesting that firms suffer from a lack of technical know-how
and experience cognitive constraints [52–54]. This barrier makes it
hard to commercialize the technology, often causing SMEs to not move
beyond the R&D phase [51].

4.1.5. Time-waste
4.1.4. Technological complexity Technological innovation in the renewable energy sector involves
Most interviewees observed that technological innovation in the many long and uncertain development cycles [54], which make it time-
sustainability landscape is quite complex, which in turn is a major and resource-consuming [52]. Some SMEs especially pointed out how

118
L.L.J. Meijer, et al.
time is consumed by searching for qualified personnel such as me-
chanical and building engineers [51,53]. The SMEs were also suffering
from time-consuming administrative work that their highly qualified
staff needs to do. Both the search for new employees and the admin-
istrative workload appears to substantially slow down the process of
developing and commercializing new technology, says interviewee STF:
‘Just the fact that you have to keep track of the hours spend on that
process. That simply puts pressure on your agenda, which you need
to keep up. You continuously think, “Have I written that down, what
have I done?” The weight is sometimes a bit too much on the ad-
ministrative side.’
4.1.6. Institutional inertness
Many interviewees observed that the sustainable energy sector is
still relatively young, despite decades of technology development. As a
result, not all governmental regulations and support measures fit the
needs of the sector at large (including SMEs). This lack of fit provides an
institutional barrier for the development of SMEs’ innovations. Several
interviewees even reported how fiscal and legislative rules induce un-
intended discrimination. That is, while a certain policy measure ap-
pears to enable some sustainable energy solutions, it simultaneously
restricts other solutions [53]. For example, one of the entrepreneurs
mentioned that “netting regulations” (“salderen” in Dutch) are bene-
ficial for the solar PV sector, but inhibits the development of solar
thermal innovations, since solar thermal end-users do not receive the
(netting) financial compensation [69]. In this respect, Polzin [68] noted
that regulations for (fossil fuel) gas extraction, supply and consumption
are not in favor of renewable energy innovation. These regulations
thereby form a significant institutional barrier for SMEs and other firms
pursuing this type of innovation:
‘In the case of energy storage systems, the barrier is that there is very
little regulation at all.’ (Interviewee STC)
‘It's more about equality between [sic, solar panels and solar water
heater] (…) People only have so many roof tiles, so many square meters
of roof and when someone has to choose: “Do I put solar panels or a
solar water heater on my roof”? People prefer to add two extra solar
panels instead of a solar water heater. Now we're at a point where both
products are more or less equivalent, so we can bring a better sales story
for a solar water heater.’ (Interviewee SOL).
4.1.7. Firm accountability
Interviewees reported that legal accountability is a major issue for
both the SME and its clients. This is particularly the case in the con-
struction of energy efficient buildings, which is perceived as a ‘fuzzy’
market with a lack of contractual agreements. Technology projects in
this area are often managed and executed by different parties, making it
difficult to assess and predict legal accountability in case of damage or
other legal risks such as those arising from secrecy requirements [52].
Additional factors are cultural and communication issues between
firms, industrial partners and customers that operate in, for example,
different time zones [51]. The SMEs believed that multi-stakeholder
projects increase legal risks, and thus they rather preferred to avoid
them. For example, RRA observed:
‘The tricky thing is doing that [fixing problems or selling products]
through other parties, imagine if there is a malfunction and via four
layers the report finally arrives. We do not like that, because then
the customer is ultimately dissatisfied and the malfunction is a week
old.’
4.1.8. Limited attention to end user
Half of the interviewed SMEs said they primarily focus on pushing
their innovation to the market, rather than explicitly considering the
end-user needs during technology development (cf. technology-push
119
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126
versus demand-pull). These entrepreneurs typically lacked any direct
contact with end users. Consequently, they were only confronted with
user needs after the technology development was completed. Then, the
SME was often unable to adequately address specific end user needs.
For example, several entrepreneurs explained that their technology
turned out to be highly user-unfriendly or completely unfit for the
market:
‘So, you also see a bit of the problem here for a company like this,
that we never have contact with the end user in the first instance.’
(Interviewee DCD)
Attending too late to the needs of end users thus appears to inhibit
successful technology commercialization. Limited attention to end user
needs especially occurs when the value chain is rather long and many
parties need to be involved in commercializing the innovation. These
conditions complicate any effort to develop a strong end user orienta-
tion and engagement with end users. The data also demonstrates that
technological solutions for renewable and sustainable energy are often
not designed to meet locally varying requirements [54]. Previous work
has largely neglected the barrier of limited attention to end users [70].
4.1.9. High market competition
This barrier involves deficiencies in marketing and commercializa-
tion capabilities [52] and the entrepreneurs’ underdeveloped know-
how of the market [51]. Almost all interviewees (19 out of 20) referred
to high market competition as a strong barrier. Moreover, three specific
underlying mechanisms were identified that apparently make market
competition highly disadvantageous for the SME: (1) market pre-
ferences caused by a limited understanding of new technologies; (2)
competitive pricing; and (3) current product efficiency expectations.
Market preferences. Some entrepreneurs argued that potential end
users (e.g. families, households, farmers) are not yet ready to adopt a
new technology. Several interviewees connected this to the observation
that market infrastructure and conditions are still entirely focused on
natural gas. Other referred to a prevailing emphasis on gas due to es-
tablished monopolies and high-powered incumbent firms. They ob-
served that the dominance of gas demotivates potential customers to
search for sustainable alternatives; and SMEs are often unable to build
substantial public exposure in the gas-dominated market [71,72]. Ac-
cording to TPS:
‘Ultimately, what we have to beat is gas. And gas is dis-
proportionately cheap, compared to electricity.’
Competitive pricing. About 70% of the interviewees observed that
the high costs arising from the development of sustainable energy
technologies makes their firms unfit to face the price competition in and
around established energy markets. Prior literature relates the SMEs'
inability to develop a market-based pricing strategy to ‘unavailable or
too expensive technology’ [52], ‘high innovation costs’ [51,54], and
‘economic barriers’ [68]. Reduced expenses for R&D and technology
commercialization would result in lower price levels, which in turn
would help increase the adoption rate of sustainable energy solutions.
However, many SMEs indicated they were still facing high R&D costs
and expensive production facilities, which makes it extremely difficult
to sell their offerings at competitive price levels:
‘You think, that's a nice solution. But the sector is very price-driven.
Price counts.’ (Interviewee SCX)
Product efficiency expectations. Product efficiency is another
competitive mechanism driving established energy markets [52], often
at the expense of other factors such as endurance, esthetics, or quality.
In this respect, renewable sources of energy typically have a low energy
density [54], which makes it even more critical that new technologies
turn these sources into higher density levels. For this reason, several
SMEs appear to spend a lot of effort in making their technologies as
efficient as possible:
L.L.J. Meijer, et al.
‘Now our efficiency is about 11–12 percent. That's not bad at all, but
you see that the market is already progressing toward 20 percent.’
(Interviewee SCX)
Unfortunately, the time and money spent on efficiency improve-
ments often are at the expense of having a good business plan in place
or focusing on the experience of end users. In other words, an SME's
current focus on high product efficiency may undermine the (equally
important) effort to make its business commercially viable.
4.1.10. Deficient legitimacy
Approval by the SME's stakeholders such as the government, sup-
pliers and customers serves to create legitimacy. In turn, this legitimacy
entails a trust relationship with supply chain partners, and acceptance
from customers. It also refers to fair treatment by the government re-
garding subsidy requests and public exposure in comparison to the of-
ferings of established fossil fuel firms. Some SMEs claimed they struggle
with gaining legitimacy because stakeholders often lack knowledge and
information [54]. For example, in the case of SLH:
‘It is also a bit of ignorance that there are installation firms that are
still trying to talk people into buying a boiler.’
Similar struggles occur when SMEs search for new partners in their
value chain or the public and financial sectors [51]. Table 3 provides an
overview of the barriers outlined thus far, and connects each of them to
the various studies identified in the literature review.
4.2. Drivers
This section highlights the drivers of an SME's commercialization
success. Fig. 2 suggests that a financial injection in the SME is vital
(mentioned by 95% of the interviewees). Moreover, having an en-
trepreneur in-house during the commercialization phase apparently
increases the chance of success (also 95%). Thirdly, a showcase in the
form of a product prototype or a living lab pilot is important (80%). The
remainder of this section explains each of the drivers. Table 4 provides
a summary.
4.2.1. Financial investment
Investment by either private or public agents is a key driver of
technology development [26,55–57,68]. These financial resources
serve several purposes such as start capital, product development, li-
quidity, risk investment, commercialization, or patent protection. One
of the interviewees explained a need for ‘tranches’ in the sustainable
energy market. Tranches are classes of securities that are part of the
Fig. 2. Drivers for commercializing sustainable energy technology.
120
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126
same transaction [73]. On the one hand, this approach would allow the
SME to deploy the acquired capital in different business activities (over
time), on the other hand it mitigates the risk for the investor. The en-
trepreneur of SNC referred to one ‘tranch’ for scaling up production,
whereas the other one would be for triggering sales:
‘Actually, you need money twice. Once to do the development and
start production. The second time to start sales. Two tranches, the
first two tranches as they usually call it.’ (interviewee SNC)
Subsidies would need to be provided in tranches as well. For ex-
ample, one of the Dutch subsidy programs for sustainable energy has
been established to stimulate the production of sustainable energy and
therefore only involves the commercialization phase. The compart-
mentalization of financial support mechanisms to specific venture
stages has undermined the viability of many SMEs pursuing technology
commercialization. Past research already stated that financial support
throughout the entire project (provided in subsequent tranches), called
‘support perseverance’ [58], is a key driver of the ultimate success of
these SMEs [74].
4.2.2. Staff
Many Dutch industries are currently facing a shortage in mechanics
and engineers [75]. Not because there is not enough money to hire
them, but simply because there is a lack of graduates in these profes-
sions. SMEs reported a significant demand for qualified, competent, and
knowledgeable personnel that can handle complex technologies. The
literature review supports this insight as well [57,58]. Facing the
shortage, one of the entrepreneurs in the interview sample ingeniously
revised the technology (developed in his company) in function of lower
level skills. By building on standard products and systems, his small
business was able to effectively hire and operate with employees that
are less technically skilled:
‘But what we are running into is that it is very difficult to get good
technical people, so now I think more in standard products and
standard systems [which requires less technical knowledge].’ (in-
terviewee RNR)
4.2.3. Knowledge
Many interviewees believe their enterprises are highly knowledge-
driven, referring to both internal knowledge and knowledge obtained
from external sources. The literature study suggested that to overcome
a shortage in relevant knowledge, such as those needed to apply for a
patent or subsidy, one thus needs to invest in knowledge and skills
[55,58]. Interviewee STC:
L.L.J. Meijer, et al.
‘We are not yet familiar with patents, a year ago we were not yet
familiar with subsidies. This is really something you need to know
more about.’
Moreover, the interview data suggest that SMEs in the sustainable
energy sector appear to especially benefit from knowledge on opera-
tions, logistics and internationalization.
4.2.4. Technology focus
In the early stages of technology development, SMEs often motivate
their engineers and product developers to build creative solutions, al-
lowing a lot of experimentation. The SMEs often remained too long in
the stage of early-stage experimentation, and therefore experienced
difficulties in settling on a focal product and engaging in sales efforts.
Yet, the literature study informs us that at some point the SME needs to
decide on the product and market segment [26,55]. Although this
moment cannot be precisely predicted, the entrepreneur of SNC re-
ported that creating such a focus is an essential trigger for success:
‘Then you have to shut things out and just do that particular thing.
And then you should not think, when you're halfway there, that
maybe we can still take this and we have so many options, and we
still have this, and that, and there, we still have to think about this,
and if we do this like that (…).’
4.2.5. Commercialization speed
Many of the SMEs claimed that it is critical to speed up R&D and
enter the commercialization phase as quickly as possible. The literature
also acknowledges the ‘speed’ driver, suggesting that SMEs are required
to (1) set ambitious deadlines for themselves while providing solutions
for operations management and logistics (e.g. just-in-time delivery)
[54], and (2) set strict delivery deadlines for their suppliers and cus-
tomers [55]. By setting deadlines, SMEs fulfill the expectations of all
involved stakeholders, since the SME is more likely to meet deadlines.
Adequate time management might also reduce costs and standardize
performance factors [55,58]. For example, one interviewee observed:
‘If you say to them ‘we have announced that we are going to show
something on 1st of March’, then those people will also start thinking
and then we'll also activate their time schedule.’ (Interviewee SNC)
4.2.6. Stamp of technology
SMEs actively search for ways to increase the validity and reliability
of their technology and product [55,57,58]. More specifically, some
interviewees suggested that a ‘stamp’ helps in proving their concept.
Such a stamp could be a patent, certificate, partnership, or investment
by another reliable SME. These external sources of legitimacy are, in
turn, helpful in attracting other stakeholders. Several entrepreneurs
appreciate the effect of official measurements by independent organi-
zations, for example:
‘If you stamp that as OK, then that's like a letter from the king, as
you used to have with a wax stamp underneath, with which you
would go to the sultan.’ (Interviewee STF)
4.2.7. Reputation of company
In a similar fashion, SMEs can benefit from reputation-building
mechanisms at the firm level. A strong reputation makes the SME more
attractive to potential partners or investors. Reputation can be realized
by hiring experienced employees who have earned their “stars and
stripes” in prior careers, or by staying in the market for such a long time
that the company itself qualifies among customers as an ‘experienced’
supplier. For example, interviewee TPS reflected on his company's re-
putation as follows:
‘In our team, we have architects for that reason, people with a lot of
121
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126
experience in this area.’
Reputation can also be realized by means of the SME's branding
efforts within their own network [57]. Here the SME's network con-
tributes to its value proposition by sharing an already established re-
putation [58].
4.2.8. Prototypes and pilots
Successful technology commercialization in the sustainable energy
sector requires that customers understand the technology. According to
SNC, many SMEs engage in R&D by (implicitly) targeting a mature
product and, by doing so, unintendedly sequence technology and
market development and thereby delay market entry. Some inter-
viewees reported that they try to overcome such a sequential approach
by building prototypes. A prototype helps potential customers to un-
derstand the SME's value proposition and to preview product quality,
which makes it easier to attract business partners.
The data demonstrates several forms of ‘prototyping’. First, the SME
can produce a beta-version of its product and demonstrate it to the
market. Potential customers and their stakeholders can then give
feedback, leading to product improvements. By working closely with its
stakeholders, the SME ensures that its innovation processes and out-
comes more closely match the requirements of customers:
‘What I have probably learned over there [i.e. from potential cus-
tomers in Asia] is simply setting a deadline and then get it finished.
And if you do not get a specification point [documented product
requirement] ready, then that will be a CR - a Change Request - for
the next generation.’ (Interviewee SNC)
Second, rapid prototyping is another form of prototyping, in which
the SME produces (a miniature version of) the product and distributes it
among many partners, in order to test the product [57]. Rapid proto-
typing may also involve a quotation offered to potential customers,
since a quotation is a prototype on paper which depicts the components
and functionalities of the product [55].
Third, the SME can test its product by means of a pilot with lead
customers and other stakeholders, possibly in a niche market. This pilot
allows the SME to experience the competitive landscape, the regula-
tions and institutions in place, and the desirability of the product
among relevant stakeholders [26,54,55,57,58,68].
4.2.9. Networks
For any technology firm, obtaining access to complementary
knowledge is often critical for successful commercialization [76]. Such
knowledge is often obtained by means of established networks, for in-
stance by hiring knowledgeable new staff members through the social
networks of current employees. Yet, a network can also serve to ex-
change resources, for example, for acquiring investment capital or re-
search facilities, obtaining IP protection, or applying for subsidies (see
quote below). Moreover, regulatory or institutional changes
[54,55,57,58,68] can be addressed by working together with powerful
actors in the network [77]. Ten of the interviewees indeed reported
how their network plays an important role during technology com-
mercialization. For example:
‘Many subsidy projects work in a similar fashion: a few parties think
about how their consortium needs to become a bit better (…) and
we as a potential partner, we're more often involved in these kinds
of projects. We're a good party. They know us through various
channels.’ (Interviewee ITV)
4.3. Entrepreneur as pivotal figure
Almost all SMEs emphasized the importance of an ‘entrepreneurial
figure’ in technology commercialization. Three specific reasons for the
key role of an entrepreneurial figure can be inferred from the data.
L.L.J. Meijer, et al.
First, a good entrepreneur is key to bridging the gap between techno-
logical complexity and market needs. Several interviewees claimed they
needed clever engineers who can build complex products; yet, if these
engineers cannot commercialize the technology into an saleable ap-
plication or, vice versa, if the SME does not have an entrepreneur who
can convince others, it has little chances of survival. Having a good
entrepreneur or salesman in-house therefore is an important driver for
commercializing sustainable energy solutions [55–58,68].
Second, entrepreneurs help to commercialize technology because
they often function as a leader in building the network, coaching the
team, and creating momentum [77]. One of the interviewees (SNC)
defined himself as an entrepreneur as follows:
“So you need coaches as peculiar like me, who have already done
some of those things and who therefore have a bit of expertise, a
piece of knowledge. Have a bit of expertise but also acquaintances.”
(Interviewee SNC)
Third, entrepreneurs have often mastered long-term strategic and
out-of-the-box thinking [55], are more creative with firm resources, and
better able to construct a holistic vision [58]. In this respect, several
interviewees acknowledged the importance of a vision that links the
new technology to its broader business ecosystem. For example:
‘The ambition is that I'll become the provider of energy systems.’
(Interviewee RNR)
‘We are capable of providing, sort of, big Lego blocks in a box for
customers to assemble.’ (Interviewee TSS)
5. Discussion and conclusion
This study aims to shed light on the role of SMEs in the energy
transition, by identifying the inhibiting as well as facilitating factors for
their technology commercialization efforts. The extant literature was
reviewed, and the results from this review were extended by conducting
a study of SMEs in the Dutch energy market.
By combining the insights from the review with empirical data, the
study contributes to the existing literature that largely overlooked SMEs
as agents, by providing new insights into barriers and drivers for
commercializing sustainable energy technologies. Table 3 sheds new
light on barriers identified in previous work by reporting that SMEs are
confronted with risks arising from technological and competitive dy-
namics, uncertainty (about time), and deficient legitimacy due to cul-
tural differences (e.g. toward German versus Asian technologies). Si-
milarly, Table 4 adds to the existing literature by identifying drivers
such as the ‘stamp of technology’, which can take the form of mea-
surements, certificates, patents or investments. Also, prototyping and
piloting while improving product features and providing building
blocks to clients are drivers that were under-researched so far. These
new insights are relevant for future business model choices by SMEs
[54]. The business model perspective on barriers and drivers will be
discussed in section 5.3.
Fig. 3 summarizes the results in an actor-based model. The data
suggests that four actors are important [1]: the SME with its technology
[2]; the market with its end-users [3]; industry partners; and [4] gov-
ernment. By accounting for different actors in the analysis of barriers
and drivers, one can make more specific suggestions on how to improve
public policy regarding SMEs as well as their management [61]. Below,
various barriers and drivers for SMEs are discussed, followed by a de-
scription of the policy implications.
5.1. Barriers in the Dutch sustainable energy market
The analysis helped to identify important barriers that Dutch SMEs
experience in the sustainable energy sector: (1) high market competi-
tion, (2) limited financial resources, (3) risk averseness, and (4)
122
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126
technological complexity. While Figs. 1 and 2 in the results section
involve a ranking of barriers and drivers across cases, the interview
data is perceptual in nature. This means that the results are likely to be
prone to a self-serving attribution bias, arising from the human ten-
dency to relate negative things such as barriers more to external factors
[78]. It is, however, standard practice in the analysis of narrative data
to let key patterns speak for themselves [61,79–82].
The SMEs in this study reported market competition to be outside
their sphere of influence, also as a result of their relatively low impact
compared to large incumbents such as gas and oil energy producers.
SMEs’ vulnerability arising from limited financial resources comple-
ments this first barrier. Limited financial resources are intrinsic to SMEs
[13,83–85] and give them little slack to invest in R&D and commer-
cialization of renewable technologies. Hoogendoorn et al. thus argued
that the smallest SMEs in terms of turnover are the least likely to be
involved in greening their products and service offerings [83]. Wiklund
and coauthors observed that market competition, measured as hostility
increase, has a direct negative effect on innovativeness, risk-taking and
pro-activeness of SMEs [13]. The technological complexity and the lack
of know-how of the SMEs involved [26,44,51–53] is not necessarily
unique for the SME setting. It is, however, an important barrier high-
lighted by the interviewed entrepreneurs, who were calling for more
careful and tailored policies. Large firms can also suffer from long
technology development cycles, although new ventures created by large
firms can profit from the resources of the parent firm, which allow them
to grow despite policy discontinuity [86].
5.2. Drivers in the Dutch sustainable energy market
This study also provides insights in the intrinsic qualities of SMEs
which can enhance the commercialization of renewable energy tech-
nology. Their small size allows them to move more easily across func-
tional domains as well as develop prototypes and pilot projects faster.
SMEs typically have no more than 100 employees, which allows the
entrepreneur to maintain an overview and act as a pivotal driver in
renewable technology commercialization (see Table 4). This finding
reflects a traditional notion of prior management studies that although
large firms are favoured by the availability of internal funds, they are
more bureaucratic than small and medium-sized enterprises with rigid
rules and routines that may make innovation difficult [87]. Many SMEs
participating in this study reported that renewable technologies often
require them to enter a new market other than the one which they
already serve and that entering a new emerging market such as the one
of sustainable energy technology is associated with a liability of new-
ness [88]. When entering the sustainable energy market, SMEs need to
show the value of their new products and services. Therefore, most
SMEs searched for ways to obtain an external quality assurance,
claiming that some kind of quality stamp can help legitimize their of-
fering toward customers and other stakeholders (see Table 4).
5.3. The interplay between barriers and drivers
In contrast to earlier research that suggests barriers and drivers for
the commercialization of sustainable energy technology are separate
entities [54], some barriers and drivers appear to operate as a kind of
‘mirror images’, meaning that a particular barrier can potentially be
removed by a specific driver. Therefore, the dynamic interplay between
barriers and drivers is very promising. For instance, the barrier of high
level of market competition can be addressed by hiring someone with
exceptional entrepreneurial skills (as driver). Or the barrier of techno-
logical complexity can be addressed by hiring more staff with advanced
engineering competences. In some conditions, multiple drivers can be
instrumental in removing one particular barrier, or vice versa, one
driver can resolve several barriers simultaneously. For example, the
barrier of deficient legitimacy can potentially be solved by obtaining a
stamp (e.g. a patent or investor), but also by a pilot in which potential
L.L.J. Meijer, et al.
Fig. 3. Different actors in the technology development and commercialization process of sustainable energy technologies and their relation to barriers (−) and
drivers (+).
customers learn about the product and its value. As various barriers and
drivers differ substantially in their frequency in the interview sample
(Figs. 1 and 2), it might well be that some barriers/drivers are more key
to inhibiting or accelerating technology commercialization. For ex-
ample, technological complexity appears to be a substantial barrier
(85%), whereas obtaining a stamp of the technology (63%) is an im-
portant driver.
This study also explicitly explored the role of different actors in
sustainable technology commercialization by SMEs, adding an extra
dimension to the understanding of barriers and drivers. In this respect,
previous work shows that business model designs define how SMEs and
their partners create and capture value [89] and a deep understanding
of the business model can support successful commercialization of
sustainable technologies [89–91]. For example, one study in this area
found that new business model designs for solar energy in the Neth-
erlands remove financial barriers, since these business models allow for
new financing mechanisms by third party-involvement of end-users
[23]. Another study shows that new business models for car sharing
appear to structure the actors in an innovative way, which serves to
increase mobility with potential sustainability gains [77]. Both ex-
amples show how barrier and drivers are affected by the relationships
between the actors involved in one single business model.
5.4. Policy implications and future research
The findings from this study imply that government can support
SMEs in various ways in their efforts to commercialize technology. For
123
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126
example, governments could support SMEs by promoting the ‘stamp’
concept that enhances legitimacy, auditing of early-stage performance,
supporting the independent testing of SMEs' technologies, and pro-
viding specialized training for new staff. In addition, the government
regulates energy markets by providing subsidies to different types of
technologies as well as setting regulations to operate in energy markets.
Local and national governments thereby both enable and restrict op-
portunities for SMEs [92]. In this respect, the institutional inertia of
governmental policies appears to restrict the support for SMEs' efforts to
commercialize renewable technology. Policy arrangements such as
‘netting’ appear to be highly beneficial to solar PV providers in the
Netherlands, but, at the same time rather disadvantageous to those
commercializing heating solutions. This illustrates the high dependence
of SMEs on public policy. The recent decision to discontinue gas ex-
traction in The Netherlands by 2030 [93] can thus be an important and
necessary market enabler for SMEs in this gas-dominated country.
Over time, regulations change (e.g. due to lobbying) which results
in larger or smaller sets of opportunities for SMEs to enact. Other fac-
tors may also initiate changes in the set of barriers and drivers. For
example, when the market for sustainable energy solutions grows,
customers and other stakeholders may become more experienced with
these solutions, thereby decreasing the barrier of technological com-
plexity [94]. Future research in the form of a longitudinal study on
some of these drivers and barriers would therefore be highly inter-
esting.
The findings also suggest other avenues for further research. First,
one can study the extent to which barriers and drivers are technology-
L.L.J. Meijer, et al.
or SME-specific. This article has made some preliminary suggestions for
solar technology in that direction, but more work is needed to fully
capture the technological specificity of (some) barriers and drivers.
Second, prior research on solar energy market development in the
Netherlands has suggested that business model design can help SMEs in
lifting or bypassing certain barriers [77,92], which calls for more re-
search into the relationships between sustainable technology commer-
cialization and business model design. The findings in this paper add to
this stream of research, yet, suggest that future work can further ex-
plore how the relationships between all actors involved are best
structured in a business model that elevates most, if not all, barriers.
Finally, the results of this study pertain to the Dutch sustainable energy
market only, and future research in this area thus needs to address other
countries and continents.
Acknowledgements
This work was financially supported by EIT KIC InnoEnergy SE. We
are grateful to Lia Maria Marchena Fuenmayor for her contributions to
this project.
Appendix A. Interview guide
Introduction of interviewers, asking for permission to record the
conversation.
Introduction
- Introduce myself: Who am I? Where is this interview for?
- Explain the goal of the research project and interview: with this
interview we hope to find out the barriers and the needs of an in-
novative SMEs in the energy sector.
- Thank the interviewee for his/her time.
- Explain how data will be handled and published. Indicate option for
‘off the record’ answering (not taped or transcribed) and checking of
transcripts and final report by the interviewee. Ask for permission to
publish their name in the final report.
A. General questions
1. Who am I talking to, what is your position in the firm? How long are
you working here?
2. How big is the firm? How many employees?
3. How many/what (innovative) products did you bring to the market?
What is your customer segment and what do you offer them (value
proposition)?
B. Open questions about necessities of the innovative firm
1. Did you experience barriers/trouble during the creation, develop-
ment and launch of the (innovative) product/process? If yes, can
you tell us more about it?
2. What does your firm need in order to be more successful in your
innovation process and to bring innovative products to the market?
What is still lacking?
3. How do the social, economic, environmental, technological, legal
and political environments impact your business?
C. Innovation development questions to guide the interviewee
1. Research and development
a. Are any of the innovations patented?
b. Do you have an innovation strategy? How do you enlarge your
business impact? Are you planning to become an international
organization? What is your vision for the coming 5/10 years?
c. Is there space for innovation provided through the whole firm?
124
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126
(Is there an innovation culture)
d. Where do you get the knowledge for innovation from?
(Organizational, sharing)?
2. Demonstrations
a. Can you describe the company's network?
i. Competitors, Partners, Government, Clients, KI, Universities
(Do you have partners in your network that do not seem to fit
in the same branch/are very different from your company?)
ii. Value chain position
b. What help/resources do you receive from you partners?
c. Do you assess the competitors' capabilities?
d. Do you receive subsidy from the government or investment from
other parties?
3. Commercialization
a. How often do you do market research and what is your targeted
customer segment does not like the product?
i. Expectations, legitimacy, popularity (What are the expecta-
tions of your customers?)
b. Do you involve your customer in the product development pro-
cess?
c. Do you have contact with firms that focus on product commer-
cialization?
d. Do you experience problems with (governmental) regulations?
When?
Last questions:
- What is the difference in innovation processes between being an
SME or a start-up? How is the transition?
- Where do you think innovation intermediaries can help you with?
- What is the added value compared to cold money from a bank?
Is there anything you would like to add to this interview?
Are there others we did not think about? (Snowballing)
References
[1] Reid WV, Chen D, Goldfarb L, Hackmann H, Lee YT, Mokhele K, et al. Earth system
science for global sustainability: grand challenges. Science 2010 Nov
12;330(6006):916–7.
[2] Marcucci A, Turton H. Induced technological change in moderate and fragmented
climate change mitigation regimes. Technol Forecast Soc Change 2015 Jan
1;90:230–42.
[3] Aerts K, Matthyssens P, Vandenbempt K. Critical role and screening practices of
European business incubators. Technovation 2007 May 1;27(5):254–67.
[4] Aram JD, Lynn LH, Reddy NM. Institutional relationships and technology com-
mercialization: limitations of market based policy. Res Pol 1992 Oct
1;21(5):409–21.
[5] Colombo MG, Delmastro M. How effective are technology incubators?: evidence
from Italy. Res Pol 2002 Sep 1;31(7):1103–22.
[6] Wright M, Clarysse B, Lockett A, Knockaert M. Mid-range universities' linkages with
industry: knowledge types and the role of intermediaries. Res Pol 2008 Sep
1;37(8):1205–23.
[7] Molenaar N, Keskin D, Diehl JC, Lauche K. Innovation process and needs of sus-
tainability driven small firms. Knowledge collaboration & learning for sustainable
innovation: ERSCP-EMSU conference, 25-29 october. 2010. [Delft].
[8] Howells J. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res Pol 2006
Jun 1;35(5):715–28.
[9] Hoppe HC, Ozdenoren E. Intermediation in innovation. Int J Ind Organ 2005 Jun
1;23(5):483–503.
[10] European Union. Progress in accelerating clean energy innovation. Luxembourg:
Publications office of the European Union; 2018.
[11] European Union. SME definition guide. 2015http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/
documents/15582/attachments/1/translations, Accessed date: 12 March 2018.
[12] Lindgren P. Business model innovation leadership: how do SME's strategically lead
business model innovation. I. Int J Bus Manag 2012:53–75.
[13] Wiklund J, Patzelt H, Shepherd DA. Building an integrative model of small business
growth. Small Bus Econ 2009;32(4):351–74.
[14] Bretherton P, Chaston I. Resource dependency and SME strategy: an empirical
study. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 2005;12(2):274–89.
[15] European Union. Annual report on european SMEs 2017/2017. Luxembourg: PwC;
2017.
[16] Mason C, Brown R. Creating good public policy to support high-growth firms. Small
Bus Econ 2013 Feb 1;40(2):211–25.
[17] Gibson DV, Conceição P. Incubating and networking technology commercialization
centers among emerging, developing, and mature technopoleis worldwide. Int
L.L.J. Meijer, et al.
Handbook Innovat 2003:739–49.
[18] Geels FW. A socio-technical analysis of low-carbon transitions: introducing the
multi-level perspective into transport studies. J Transp Geogr 2012 Sep
1;24:471–82.
[19] IMD. IMD world competitiveness yearbook. Lausanne: IMD World Competitiveness
Center; 2014.
[20] Verhees B, Raven R, Veraart F, Smith A, Kern F. The development of solar PV in The
Netherlands: a case of survival in unfriendly contexts. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2013 Mar 1;19:275–89.
[21] Markard J, Raven R, Truffer B. Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of re-
search and its prospects. Res Pol 2012 Jul 1;41(6):955–67.
[22] Vasileiadou E, Huijben JCCM, Raven RPJM. Three is a crowd? Exploring the po-
tential of crowdfunding for renewable energy in The Netherlands. J Clean Prod
2016 Aug 1;128:142–55.
[23] Huijben JCCM, GPJ Verbong. Breakthrough without subsidies? PV business model
experiments in The Netherlands. Energy Policy 2013 May 1;56:362–70.
[24] Verbong G, Geels F. The ongoing energy transition: lessons from a socio-technical,
multi-level analysis of the Dutch electricity system (1960–2004). Energy Policy
2007. Feb 1;35(2):1025–37.
[25] European Commission. 2016 SBA fact sheet. The Netherlands: European
Commission; 2017.
[26] Foxon TJ, Gross R, Chase A, Howes J, Arnall A, Anderson D. UK innovation systems
for new and renewable energy technologies: drivers, barriers and systems failures.
Energy Policy 2005 Nov 1;33(16):2123–37.
[27] OECD/IEA. Energy policies of IEA countries: The Netherlands 2014 review. Paris:
International Energy Agency; 2014.
[28] IEA. Key world energy Statistics. Paris: International Energy Agency; 2017.
[29] CBS. Trends in The Netherlands 2017. 2017https://longreads.cbs.nl/trends17-eng/
economy/figures/energy/, Accessed date: 18 March 2018.
[30] Visser M. Renewable energy in The Netherlands january 2017. Groningen: Energy
Academy Europe; 2017.
[31] ECN. The national energy outlook. The Netherlands: Nationale Energieverkenning;
2016.
[32] Ek K, Persson L. Wind farms — where and how to place them? A choice experiment
approach to measure consumer preferences for characteristics of wind farm estab-
lishments in Sweden. Ecol Econ 2014 Sep 1;105:193–203.
[33] Baarsma B, de Nooij M, Koster W, van der Weijden C. Divide and rule. The eco-
nomic and legal implications of the proposed ownership unbundling of distribution
and supply companies in the Dutch electricity sector. Energy Policy 2007 Mar
1;35(3):1785–94.
[34] ECN. About ECN. https://www.ecn.nl/nl/; 2018, Accessed date: 22 February 2018.
[35] PBL. Planbureau voor de leefomgeving. http://www.pbl.nl/; 2018, Accessed date:
22 February 2018.
[36] CBS. Centraal bureau voor de Statistiek. https://www.cbs.nl/; 2018, Accessed date:
22 February 2018.
[37] RVO. Rijksdienst voor ondernemend nederland. https://www.rvo.nl/; 2018,
Accessed date: 22 February 2018.
[38] NWO. Nederlandse organisatie voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek. http://www.
nwo.nl/; 2018, Accessed date: 22 February 2018.
[39] Avans. Avans university of applied science. http://www.avans.nl/onderzoek; 2018,
Accessed date: 22 February 2018.
[40] European Commission. Euratom. https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/
en/h2020-section/euratom; 2018, Accessed date: 22 February 2018.
[41] Elzen B, Geels FW, Green K. System innovation and the transition to sustainability:
theory, evidence and policy. Edward Elgar Publishing; 2004. p. 344.
[42] Topsector Energie. Top sector energy. https://topsectorenergie.nl/en/; 2018,
Accessed date: 15 May 2018.
[43] OECD. OECD economic survey Netherlands. The Netherlands: OECD; 2016.
[44] Cagno E, Worrell E, Trianni A, Pugliese G. A novel approach for barriers to in-
dustrial energy efficiency. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2013 Mar 1;19:290–308.
[45] European Commission. Report on the results of public consultation. The
Netherlands: DG Enterprise and Industry; 2012.
[46] European Union. Key figures on europe. Luxembourg: Imprimerie Centrale; 2017.
[47] Weyant JP. Accelerating the development and diffusion of new energy technologies:
beyond the “valley of death.”. Energy Econ 2011 Jul 1;33(4):674–82.
[48] Barr SH, Baker T, Markham SK, Kingon AI. Bridging the valley of death: lessons
learned from 14 Years of commercialization of technology education vol. 19. 2009.
[49] Yin RK. Case study research: design and methods. London: SAGE Publications;
2003.
[50] Burawoy M. Critical sociology: a dialogue between two sciences. Contemp Sociol
1998 Jan;vol. 27(1):12–20. Washington.
[51] Tiwari R, Buse S. Barriers to innovation in SMEs: can the internationalization of R&
D mitigate their effects? Proceedings of the first european conference of knowledge
for growth: role and dynamics of corporate R&D. Seville: CONCORD; 2007.
[52] Kaufmann A, Tödtling F. How effective is innovation support for SMEs? An analysis
of the region of Upper Austria. Technovation 2002 Mar 1;22(3):147–59.
[53] Pihkala T, Ylinenpaa H, Vesalainen J. Innovation barriers amongst clusters of
European SMEs. Int J Entrep Innov Manag 2002 Jan 1;2(6):520–36.
[54] Engelken M, Römer B, Drescher M, Welpe IM, Picot A. Comparing drivers, barriers,
and opportunities of business models for renewable energies: a review. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2016 Jul 1;60:795–809.
[55] Karytsas S, Choropanitis I. Barriers against and actions towards renewable energy
technologies diffusion: a Principal Component Analysis for residential ground
source heat pump (GSHP) systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017 Oct
1;78:252–71.
[56] Kowalska-Pyzalska A. What makes consumers adopt to innovative energy services
125
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126
in the energy market? A review of incentives and barriers. Renew Sustain Energy
Rev 2018 Feb 1;82:3570–81.
[57] del Río P, Peñasco C, Mir-Artigues P. An overview of drivers and barriers to con-
centrated solar power in the European Union. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018 Jan
1;81:1019–29.
[58] Darmani A, Arvidsson N, Hidalgo A, Albors J. What drives the development of re-
newable energy technologies? Toward a typology for the systemic drivers. Renew
Sustain Energy Rev 2014 Oct 1;38:834–47.
[59] van der Klein M, Jansma A, Aussems C. Literatuurstudie werkgevers over vast en
flexibel personeel. Utrecht: Verwey-Jonker Instituut; 2016.
[60] Dolmans SAM, van Burg E, Reymen IMMJ, Romme AGL. Dynamics of resource slack
and constraints: resource positions in action. Organ Stud 2014 Apr 1;35(4):511–49.
[61] Kangas H-L, Lazarevic D, Kivimaa P. Technical skills, disinterest and non-functional
regulation: barriers to building energy efficiency in Finland viewed by energy
service companies. Energy Policy 2018 Mar 1;114:63–76.
[62] Al-Mubaraki HM, Busler M. Business incubators models of the USA and UK: a SWOT
analysis. World J Entr Manag Sustain Dev 2010;6(4):335–54.
[63] Massa S, Testa S. Innovation and SMEs: misaligned perspectives and goals among
entrepreneurs, academics, and policy makers. Technovation 2008 Jul
1;28(7):393–407.
[64] Huberman AM, Miles MB. Drawing valid meaning from qualitative data: some
techniques of data reduction and display. Qual Quantity 1983 Aug
1;17(4):281–339.
[65] Gioia DA, Price KN, Hamilton AL, Thomas JB. Forging an identity: an insider-out-
sider study of processes involved in the formation of organizational identity. Adm
Sci Q 2010 Mar 1;55(1):1–46.
[66] Saldaña J. Popular film as an instructional strategy in qualitative research methods
courses. Qual Inq 2009 Jan 1;15(1):247–61.
[67] Miles MB, Huberman AM, Huberman MA, Huberman PM. Qualitative data analysis:
an expanded sourcebook. SAGE; 1994. p. 358.
[68] Polzin F. Mobilizing private finance for low-carbon innovation – a systematic re-
view of barriers and solutions. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2017 Sep 1;77:525–35.
[69] van Weerdt J. Saldering op de schop. Loont het nog om te investeren in zonnepa-
nelen? Business Insider; 2018https://www.businessinsider.nl/saldering-op-de-
schop-loont-het-nog-om-te-investeren-zonnepanelen/, Accessed date: 18 April
2019.
[70] Tolkamp J, Huijben JCCM, Mourik RM, GPJ Verbong, Bouwknegt R. User-centred
sustainable business model design: the case of energy efficiency services in The
Netherlands. J Clean Prod 2018 May 1;182:755–64.
[71] Ministry of Economic Affairs. Energy report transition to sustainable energy. The
Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs; 2016.
[72] van Hofslot G. Nederland blijft nog jarenlang afhankelijk van gas. Dagblad van het
Noorden; 2018 May 17https://www.dvhn.nl/groningen/Nederland-blijft-nog-
jarenlang-afhankelijk-van-gas-23190054.html, Accessed date: 23 April 2019.
[73] Fender I, Mitchell J. Incentives and tranche retention in securitisation: a screening
model. National Bank of Belgium Working Paper; 2009 Oct. p. 11.
[74] SRA. Mkb wil in 2018 meer investeren in groei. https://www.sra.nl/NieuwsById?
id=BFABB6A5324340F8AE1BE33C18CD9A56; 2017 Nov 14, Accessed date: 23
April 2019.
[75] Wortel E. Nijpend tekort aan technisch personeel maakt versnelling noodzakelijk
Techniekpact https://www.techniekpact.nl/nijpend-tekort-aan-technisch-
personeel-maakt-versnelling-noodzakelijk; 2018 Jun 18, Accessed date: 18 April
2019.
[76] Meulman F, Reymen IMMJ, Podoynitsyna KS, Romme L, AG. Searching for partners
in open innovation settings: how to overcome the constraints of local search. Calif
Manag Rev 2018 Feb 1;60(2):71–97.
[77] Meijer LLJ, Schipper F, Huijben JCCM. The roles of business models in sustain-
ability transitions: car sharing in sydney. In: Zinek RJ, Baumgartner AL,
KiesnereRauter R, editors. Exploring a changing view on organizing value creation.
Graz: Institute of Systems Science, Innovation and Sustainability; 2017. p. 72–6.
[78] Tsang EWK. Self-serving attributions in corporate annual reports: a replicated
study. J Manag Stud 2002;39(1):51–65.
[79] Alvesson M. Beyond Neopositivists, romantics, and localists: a reflexive approach to
interviews in organizational research. Acad Manag Rev 2003;28(1):13–33.
[80] Alvesson M, Sköldberg K. Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative re-
search. SAGE; 2017. p. 457.
[81] Burgess RG. In the field : an introduction to field research. London ; Boston: Allen &
Unwin; 1984.
[82] Morgan G, Smircich L. The case for qualitative research. Acad Manag Rev
1980;5(4):491–500.
[83] Hoogendoorn B, Guerra D, van der Zwan P. What drives environmental practices of
SMEs? Small Bus Econ 2015 Apr 1;44(4):759–81.
[84] Lee N, Sameen H, Cowling M. Access to finance for innovative SMEs since the fi-
nancial crisis. Res Pol 2015 Mar 1;44(2):370–80.
[85] Fielden SL, Davidson MJ, Makin PJ. Barriers encountered during micro and small
business start‐up in North‐West England. J Small Bus Enterp Dev 2000
Dec;7(4):295–304.
[86] Georgallis P, Durand R. Achieving high growth in policy-dependent industries:
differences between startups and corporate-backed ventures. Long Range Plan 2016
Jun 11;40(7):613–29.
[87] Meeus MTH, Oerlemans LAG. Firm behaviour and innovative performance: an
empirical exploration of the selection–adaptation debate. Res Pol 2000 Jan
1;29(1):41–58.
[88] Freeman J, Carroll GR, Hannan MT. The liability of newness: age dependence in
organizational death rates. Am Sociol Rev 1983;48(5):692–710.
[89] Zott C, Amit R, Massa L. The business model: recent developments and future
L.L.J. Meijer, et al.
research. J Manag 2011 Jul 1;37(4):1019–42.
[90] Bidmon CM, Knab SF. The three roles of business models in societal transitions: new
linkages between business model and transition research. J Clean Prod 2018 Mar
20;178:903–16.
[91] Boons F, Lüdeke-Freund F. Business models for sustainable innovation: state-of-the-
art and steps towards a research agenda. J Clean Prod 2013 Apr 1;45:9–19.
[92] Huijben JCCM, GPJ Verbong, Podoynitsyna KS. Mainstreaming solar: stretching the
126
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 112 (2019) 114–126
regulatory regime through business model innovation. Environ Innov Soc
Transitions 2016 Sep 1;20:1–15.
[93] Rijksoverheid. Kabinet: einde aan gaswinning in Groningen. https://www.
rijksoverheid.nl/onderwerpen/gaswinning-in-groningen/nieuws/2018/03/29/
kabinet-einde-aan-gaswinning-in-groningen; 2018, Accessed date: 30 March 2018.
[94] Sovacool BK, Lakshmi Ratan P. Conceptualizing the acceptance of wind and solar
electricity. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2012 Sep 1;16(7):5268–79.