Management of Environmental Innovations in the Public Sector in Mexico: Energy, Water, Agroforestry, Biocultural, and Mining Cases1 ()
1. Introduction
The government in power in Mexico since December 2018 has introduced a series of significant policies, programs, and new management elements that align with its transformative fourth transformation (4T). These initiatives are not just about well-being goals, diminishing unequal distribution, social justice, democracy, honesty (as the absence of corruption), sovereignty, and environmental sustainability, but also about shaping the future of the country.
In this context, the government has introduced a series of changes that could be considered true innovations, thus challenging the theoretical and methodological precepts of studies on Public Service Innovations (PSI). This paper aims to identify, analyze, and document these unique environmental innovations related to energy, water, agroforestry, biocultural, and mining.
The sources of innovation come from the relations between Humans (H) and Nature (N), mediated by Technology, which generate a use value and, from this, a nature value, both regulated by the public sector, contemplating a public value (Figure 1).
The evolution of relationships between human beings and nature is a complex process. It has transitioned from a simple concept of nature as a set of resources to an ecological economics concept, which reflects nature’s value independent of human uses, considering both intrinsic and economic perspectives (Rea & Munns, 2017) . A key concept in this evolution is Nature-Based Solutions (NBS), which mitigate climate change and slow further warming, support biodiversity, and secure ecosystem services. Given the complexity of nature and the current biodiversity crises, a systemic approach is necessary to find better solutions (de Vries, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2015) . This concept of nature is incorporated into the public value, which is limited to the pros and cons of each innovation.
Two lines of research are contemplated: public service innovation and its environmental impact. For that purpose, the following definitions are proposed:
• Public service innovation (PSI) focuses mainly on social well-being. It is defined as creating and implementing new processes, products, services, and delivery methods, or their discontinuity, with the participation of organizations, suppliers, and customers2.
![]()
Figure 1. Relationship between Humans, Nature and the public sector.
• Sustainable development (SD) is defined as meeting “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987: p. 16) .
This implies that business and policy decisions are interdependent on social, economic, and environmental dimensions (Omri, 2020) .
Therefore, in the current context of public change in Mexico, a methodology is developed first to capture the innovation of eleven selected current PSI in Mexico (Annex 1), based on the perception of two indicators: 1) the INDICO index, which is adapted to service innovation from an already developed for technology firms, and 2) the gain on an environmental problem, after its application. The methodology proves that it could help prioritize specific public service innovations and provide a basis for policy designing for the short- and long-term.
2. Literature Review
The main lines of this paper, public service innovation and environment, are present in the literature. However, they are both rarely related, so today’s most striking policy opportunity is to improve the coherence between environmental and innovation policies (Heaton, 2020) .
Innovation began as an economic concept to explain entrepreneurial behavior in the context of crisis (Schumpeter, 1934) . The trajectory from technological innovation in firms is later applied to innovation in service firms based on different thinking stages: first, the “assimilation” of the firm’s technology innovation concepts to services. Second, a “differentiation” is made in the sense that specific concepts are developed to understand service innovation, such as co-value, co-creation, and co-production (De Koning, Crul, Marcel, & Wever, 2016) , or “hidden innovation” for creative firms (Miles & Green, 2008) . An additional standpoint is that all could be considered a service-dominant logic” (Lusch & Vargo, 2016) . Third, a perspective of “inversion” in which service innovation is applied to technology innovation firms, widening the view of both. The current thinking tends to be an “integration” view of innovation in goods and services (Gallouj, 2010) .
Under the framework of innovation in services, a further step is its application to public services, which embrace the “user value” and the “public value” together. This comes from the public social goals such as welfare, social inclusion, anti-corruption regulations, and human rights (Giuliani, 2016) , and attends to other problems such as defense and disordered immigration, as well as societal side-effects, including environmental, social, cultural, and political implications. One important function of public services is regulation, which reduces the social cost of transactions and provides equal opportunities to firms and individuals (Figure 1).
Two alternative approaches, institutional ecological economics and free-market approaches to environmental protection, are competing (Silvestre & Tirca, 2019) . However, synthesis is possible if it is under the umbrella of economic institutionalism, beneath public regulations (Gendron, 2014: p. 243) . Therefore, as is proposed in this article, solving the interests of the agents participating in the Public-private partnership (Hartley, 2015) , P-p-ρ, as an alternative organization where there is “cooperation of some sort of durability between public and private actors in which they jointly develop products and services and share risks, costs, and resources which are connected with these products” (Van Ham & Koppenjan, 2001: p. 18) .
To investigate sustainability, the life cycle assessment (LCA) is one of the most thorough techniques considering: 1) the Use of energy, 2) the Use of water, 3) the Output of material resources, including recycling and waste, and 4) emissions to air (Nabavi-Pelesaraei & Naderloo, 2022) . Those resources are connected to a dynamic flow of different components and context uncertainties, such as Technology feasibility, Commercial viability, Organizational appropriability, and Social acceptability (TCOS, acronyms) (Hall, Matos, Silvestre, & Martin, 2011: pp. 1148) .
This broad definition could be associated with specific approaches to public value, such as Local Regeneration, Policy, Infrastructure, Governance, and Development (Weihe, 2006) .
3. Methodology
As it has been mentioned above, the stages of the trajectory of innovation reach the innovation of Public Services, PSI, which implies adjusting, accordingly, first the metric to evaluate its innovativeness by assessing capacity and results through the Innovation, Diffusion, and Co-value index INDICO (Corona, Doutriaux, & Mian, 2006) . Second, a metric based on three axes, Time, Space, and Organization, is used to assess the impact of the PSI on environmental issues.
INDICO Index
The INDICO Index measures innovativeness between different PSIs based on their capabilities and results, with half the ten maximum points for each pillar (Table 1).
The results are, first, innovation in services (1.5 points) and second, diffusion, evidenced by its replications (1 point). Thirdly, the beneficiaries express a use value (1), and a public value (1) that legitimizes Vis society, finally, the knowledge that is incorporated into the innovation (0.5) (Table 1).
The capacities include, first, process and organizational innovations (0.5) and the knowledge involved in generating the PSI (0.5). Second, the staff’s educational relevance and skills and on-the-job training (1). Third, the design of the PSI invested in R&D organization (2). Finally, Co-value capabilities (1) through user participation in the PSI in different phases, from design to creation and delivery (Table 1).
Environmental Assessment
For the assessment of the environmental impacts, three axes are considered:
Time, expressed in human generations, is essential because current decisions also consider future generations’ well-being, which is the core of sustainable development.
![]()
Table 1. INDICO INDEX for Public Services.
Source: Author’s elaboration; NA, not Applicable.
Second, there is the organization of the space governance, whether local or with more global agents, since environmental problems have broad impacts that require action coordination at different regional levels.
Third, behavior that contrasts a selfish or individualistic attitude against awareness and collective commitment to the environment and social problems as the attention to these issues needs the cooperation of different agents (Figure 2).
Therefore, the perceived impacts of the PSI, which hold significant implications, are divided into two levels for each of those three axes (Figure 2).
Meant for the time axis, focusing on the actual or the future human generations.
Aimed at the organizational axis, Y, whether it is local or global.
Moreover, Z, the behavior axis is selfishness or awareness of the social environmental limits.
These behaviors, crucially, are compatible with different degrees of public regulation: either in the interest of public-private relationships or in the international organizations objectives (Table 2 column 3).
The degree of social awareness with dominant local rules or social coordination according to UN Global Agenda 30 (Biermann, Kanieb, & Kima, 2017) .
![]()
Figure 2. Types of Enviromental impacts of PSI based on three Axis.
Then, a broad spectrum of eight different potential degrees of addressing environmental problems, ordered from least to most significant impact, is presented: from “Recycling Economy” to “Responsible long-term global business models” (Table 2).
To refine the assessment possibilities, each case is divided into three levels. So, there are 6 cases by axis (2 per 3), totaling 216 possibilities (63) (Table 3).
The following section applies the two-mention metrics to eleven environmental innovations, PSI (Annex 1).
4. Results
The areas of energy, water, agroforestry, and biocultural from which the eleven PSIs were chosen and implemented in Mexico since 2019 are in Table 4.
The methodology estimates their relative innovativeness and impact on the environment accordingly. The Indigenous culture shows the maximum gain in the environmental impact of 7.54 points. Others above the average of 4.71 are the Maize’s PSIs (one for glyphosate use restrictions and another for its diversity) and Sowing Life. There is a low-impact group under the average: the two Energy PSIs and the two related to Water scarcity. This clustering could be explained by the short-term impact of the first group, A, while the second, B, will express more impacts in the longer term. Although, the preservation and promotion of agricultural practices of indigenous people (PSI 5) has a middle innovativeness, between A and B, and the highest positive impact in the environment (Figure 3).
A regression of both groups, with eleven observations, has a positive impact of 0.71 on environmental issues per one unit of innovativeness increment over a base value of 0.89 (Figure 3):
Environment impact = 0.89 + 0.71 (INDICO)+; R2 = 0.52, n = 11 (1)
![]()
Table 2. Evaluation of environmental and social impacts in three axes: Time, Organization, and Behavior.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
![]()
Table 3. Evaluation of environment and social impacts in three axis: TIME, ORGANIZATION, AND BEHAVIOR.
Source: Author’s elaboration.
![]()
![]()
Table 4. PSI with INDICO innovativeness measurement and its impact gain on the enviroment.
Source: Author’s elaboration. * It is the hypotenuse of the three PSI’s axes values: Time, Organization, and Behavior.
![]()
Figure 3. PSI’s INDICO vs Environmental Impact, of PSI.
5. Discussion
A more significant number of PSIs is desirable. Incorporating more related actors could help improve and diversify their perceptions of them.
The methodology applied helps prioritize the PSIs. Metric analysis can furthermore help develop short- and long-term policies.
From the theoretical point of view, its application is an example of a viable and necessary approach based on institutional economics (regulation) combined with neoclassical, evolutionist, and ecological economics (Lenka, Tatiana, & Jílková, 2010) .
The eleven PSIs selected are defined top-down, so this limitation could be overcome with innovation from intrapreneurial behavior that is down-top in public organizations (Kraus, Breier, Jones, & Hughes, 2019) .
The Public-private partnerships (P-p-ρ, or P3s) are complex hybrid organizations that have become diffused, becoming part of a policy for infrastructure construction and delivery worldwide. They have a dual nature as they are context-driven and socially constructed, including macro and micro (private) interests that enact efficacy and sustainability and institutionalize “preferred” policy measures of “public interest” (Omri, 2020) . However, the economic and political power asymmetries between the public and private actors produced different impacts and conflicts of interest. An example is the mining industry, which generates contradictions with uncertain results (Clinca’s 11-PSI, see Annex 1).
6. Conclusion
The relationship between public innovation and its impact on environmental problems is scarce in the literature. Moreover, metrics suitable to public innovativeness and the state of the environment-specific problems are rarely found.
Looking at the evolution of both concepts, a double metric approach is applied to the context of changes in the Mexican government since 2019. However, the proposed methodology could be used in other contexts to measure the innovativeness of public services and the impact on public or social goals, such as the environmental problems chosen in this paper.
Applying the methodology to eleven public innovations selected (Annex 1), it is found that there is a positive impact on environmental problems. More precisely, 71% of the innovativeness is transferred to paying attention to environmental problems (Equation (1)).
First, PSIs are grouped in A, linked to energy and water, with the most significant environmental degradation and substantial institutional obstacles. So, their management will require more complex and longer-term solutions to discourage the agents’ degradation-causing behavior. Moreover, a second PSI group, B, is related to agroforestry, biocultural, and mining, which are more efficient in solving environmental problems. Indigenous agricultural practices (PSI 5) have a middle innovativeness and the highest preservation impact on the environment (Figure 3). This finding can help design specific policies for each group but must also be concerned about its economic sector characteristics.
As most of the PSIs are approved by the Mexican Presidency, some with Decrees need to be implemented and supervised by pertinent organizations and institutional cooperation. We also need to empower communities, which are either users or consumers of the public service, as well as private firms or other associations. An explicit intrapreneurship open innovation would complement the top-down PSI policy.
Acknowledgements
This paper is an output of the National Autonomous University of Mexico’s financial research support under the current project Papiit-IN 300822: Innovation in Public Policies in Mexico for six years, 2019-2024.
The main contribution is to relate public innovations, PSI, and their impact on environmental problems with a double metric: one of innovativeness and another of environmental benefit. The methodology, applied to Mexico 2019-2024, could be used in other contexts, as it provides results that could help deter behaviors of agents that impact environmental degradation. One recommendation is that PSI, as an open innovation, involves and empowers communities as users or consumers of public services and private companies or other associations as co-producers.
Thanks to Alexis Camacho for helping with his perception evaluation of the PSIs and for his suggestions for this paper. Antonio Millan has implemented the underlying assessment model.
Acronyms
CEPCyT, Center for Economic and Prospective in Science and Technology.
CSID World Bank’s Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes.
CFE is Mexico’s public agency for power energy (Comisión Federal de Electricidad, in Spanish).
INDICO, Innovation, Diffusion, and Co-value, innovativeness index.
LCA, Life Cycle Assessment
P-p-ρ, Public-private partnership
PSI, Public Service Innovation (Opara & Rouse, 2019, Volume 58)
Papiit, UNAM’s Support Program for Research and Technological Innovation Projects
TCOS, Technology feasibility, Commercial viability, Organizational appropriability, and Social acceptability.
UNAM, National Autonomous University of Mexico.
Annex 1
![]()
Table A1. Public Service Innovations: Description and environmental impacts.
Source: Author’s elaboration based on published information.
NOTES
1This version is an updated of the paper presented in the Picmet Conference in Monterrey Mexico in 2023.
2Definition based on (Moore, Sparrow, & Spelman, 1997) , (Mulgan & Albury, 2003) , (Bason, 2010) , (Osborne & Brown, 2013) , (Mazzucato, 2014) .