Innovation and its enemies

IN 1869, EMPOROR NAPOLEON III (nephew of Napoleon Bonaparte) set a challenge: to find a cheaper alternative to butter. Butter was both expensive and scarce, making it inaccessible to the lower classes and impractical for military rations. As France industrialised, urban populations grew, increasing demand for affordable food. To address a broader imperial concern for food security, social welfare, and military provisioning, Napoleon III offered a prize to anyone who could develop a scalable, cheaper, long-lasting alternative.

French chemist Hippolyte Mège-Mouriès answered the challenge with a breakthrough: margarine. Created initially using a blend of beef tallow and later refined with vegetable oils, he employed chemical processes to produce a product that was not only cheaper but also had a longer shelf life than butter. It was a genuine technological breakthrough, improving nutrition for countless working-class families who struggled with malnutrition.

However margarine’s success also ignited a fierce backlash. The dairy industry lobbied aggressively, resulting in heavy taxes and regulations. Some laws even forced margarine to be sold uncoloured (white or pink) to maintain butter’s visual advantage. Quebec in Canada outright banned margarine for over a century, until 2008. Despite its clear benefits, powerful incumbent interests, regulatory inertia, and cultural scepticism delayed margarine’s widespread acceptance. This historical drama encapsulates a recurring lesson: true innovation is never purely about technological merit; it’s shaped by economic, social, and political forces.

“People are very open-minded about new things – as long as they’re exactly like the old ones.” Charles Kettering

Innovation in Construction
The construction industry faces its own innovations under siege – albeit less colourfully than margarine’s white-versus-yellow tussle. From digitisation and advanced, greener materials to offsite fabrication and AI, new, modern methods promise improvements in economic, social, and environmental outcomes. Yet, much like the dairy industry’s reaction to margarine, entrenched practices and vested interests can hamper progress.

The hesitation isn’t always irrational. Genuine risks – safety concerns, potential cost overruns, liability issues – make stakeholders cautious. Moreover, the fragmented nature of construction projects and risk-averse contracting further complicate adoption. With works procured on a project by project basis, on small margins and with long-term liability, industry players sensibly prioritise immediate certainty over potential longer-term gains.

“Every great movement must experience three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption”. John Stuart Mill
“In the United Kingdom, products are risky even when proven safe.” Calestous Juma

These quotes highlight cultural and psychological dimensions of resistance. Ridicule arises when new ideas sound too radical; discussion happens once scepticism softens; and adoption occurs only after extensive debate and evidence. In a sector where failure can be catastrophic, we can’t shouldn’t simply dismiss these stages as “foot-dragging.” High-profile incidents like Grenfell Tower or Ronan Point and the legacy of high alumina cement and RAAC underscore the catastrophic consequences of poorly tested or misapplied methods.

However, there is also a paradox: excessive status quo bias can stifle innovations that improve safety, boost sustainability, or lower costs. The adoption of CLT for example has itself become a public tug-of-war between innovation and caution. Equally failing to innovate carries its own risks—environmental degradation, labour shortages, productivity stagnation, and public dissatisfaction with outdated infrastructure. A reluctance to adopt proven techniques or materials can be just as detrimental as rushing headlong into unproven technologies.

Innovation isn’t in Everyone’s Interests
Resistance to innovation in construction doesn’t occur in a vacuum; it is shaped by the economic, regulatory, and cultural contexts in which projects unfold. Several interlocking factors help explain why the industry often struggles to advance:

• Vested interests – Incumbent market actors who hold significant market power and long-standing relationships often lobby to preserve the status quo. For instance, in 2015, major housebuilders in the UK successfully stalled the zero carbon homes policy and have since pushed back on upcoming Future Homes Standards. By blocking or delaying changes, these players protect short-term profits but hinder the overall sector’s progress toward sustainable, innovative practices.
• Status Quo Bias – Regulatory bodies typically default to proven approaches, favouring small, incremental shifts over disruptive leaps. Building regulations can be slow to update, and product certifications require years of testing. Meanwhile, mortgage lenders and warranty providers—who shoulder financial risk—naturally hesitate from deviating beyond what history has tried, tested and proven.
• Distributed benefits—Consumers of new innovations are often dispersed, making it harder to mobilise widespread support. Unlike manufacturing, construction involves multiple stakeholders—developers, designers, contractors, regulators—who must align for systemic change to take place.
• Procurement and Risk Transfer Culture:. In an industry where risk is transferred along the supply chain, mistakes are costly. Consequentially a culture of satisficing – choosing what is good enough, the least worst rather than the optimal – is best.

Satisficing is compounded by the common assumption that new means risky while the status quo is risk-free. The long-tail risks of typical practices are perceived as more “manageable” than the uncertainties of novel solutions—despite history showing that this complacency can be both dangerous and costly. From a job security perspective this make sense, however at a industry level, this strategic defensiveness (as anointed by Rory Sutherland) locks in suboptimal results.

Joseph Schumpeter famously popularised the term “creative destruction,” describing how novel methods disrupt entrenched industries. However, disruption alone does not guarantee meaningful progress—poorly integrated innovations can fail as quickly as antiquated systems.

From a co-evolutionary standpoint, technology, the economy, and institutions evolve in tandem. Introducing AI, offsite fabrication, or sustainable materials requires complementary shifts in policy, business models, and workforce skills. Without these parallel changes, even the most promising innovations may stagnate under the weight of outmoded structures and cultural norms.

In his book “Innovation and its Enemies”, Calestous Juma reaffirms this, outlining three elements that affect the likelihood of innovation success:

• Intensity of Motivation – The more valuable the solution being replaced, the greater the challenge to the innovation, but also the stronger the push for its adoption.
• Distribution of Winners and Losers – While producers of traditional methods are concentrated and influential, consumers of new innovations tend to be widely dispersed, making resistance easier to organise than support.
• Role of Authority – Whether policymakers support or suppress an innovation is crucial. Resistance from regulators can delay or block adoption entirely.

Strategies for Overcoming Resistance
To advance the sector, the industry must move beyond a narrow focus on technology and instead consider structural and organisational transformation. It requires systemic change, driven by policy shifts, stakeholder trust, new business models, and robust risk management – all while addressing legitimate concerns about risk and commercial models. This includes:

1. Holistic Approaches: Real progress often emerges from complementary organisational changes rather than relying on technology as a silver bullet. These include:

• Skills Development – Strengthening workforce capabilities to align with emerging technologies. Mark Farmer’s recent interest is well founded.
• Collaborative Planning – Encouraging early-stage cooperation across supply chains.
• Leadership-Driven Experimentation – Creating an environment where controlled trials and iterative learning are embraced.

Over-emphasis on tools or software can lead to “solutions in search of problems.” Often, optimising workflows, improving communication, or revising contract structures delivers more immediate and sustainable benefits

2. Address Stakeholder Concerns: Given the fragmented supply chains and multiple vested interests in construction, open dialogue is essential for building trust and shared goals. A structured, evidence-based approach is key:
• Pilot Projects & Case Studies – Demonstrating success through real-world applications to ease scepticism.
• Transparent Engagement – Sharing both positive and negative results to build credibility.
• Inclusive Decision-Making – Involving regulators, insurers, lenders, community groups, and end-users early in the process to create shared ownership of risks and rewards.
By embedding these principles into the industry’s transformation efforts, the sector can drive innovation in a responsible, balanced manner that mitigates resistance and maximises long-term benefits.

3. Risk Allocation Review: Risk aversion is a natural response – it reflects the reality that there is limited reward for unproven potential relative to certainty. To create a shift beyond the ‘least worst’ procurers need to consider how their risk apportionment supports continuous improvement, not work against it
The principles extolled within the Construction Playbook and Gold Standard, particularly programmatic procurement based upon collaborative models, are crucial to ensuring that immediate demands align with long-term ambitions.

4. Evolution of Policy: Regulatory bodies, while traditionally cautious, can act as catalysts for innovation by removing barriers and creating an environment that enables progress. Effective policy evolution requires a proactive approach that aligns regulatory frameworks with emerging technologies while balancing risk and accountability. This includes the development of targeted incentives that driving change but also for reducing the friction associated with innovation adoption.

5. Develop New Business Models: For innovation to take root, business models must evolve to ensure that new technologies align with commercial realities and demonstrate long-term value. Ultimately innovation should be commercially viable rather than reliant on policy enforcement or short-term incentives however to achieve requires:

• New methods to integrate with existing workflows without excessive disruption.
• Pilot programs that allow incremental scaling help mitigate risks and encourage broader adoption.
• Clear value proposition – with defined, visible returns that stimulates market demand

By integrating strategic, scalable business models, construction firms can future-proof their operations, ensuring innovation adoption is both practical and profitable.

To achieve these principles requires a coordinated effort from both innovators and orchestrators to create an environment where innovation can thrive while addressing legitimate concerns. Only by understanding and actively addressing the complex dynamics of innovation resistance can we unlock the full potential of new technologies in the built environment. The sector faces ever-mounting pressures, but the solution is not simply to accelerate technological adoption. Instead, the focus should be on navigating the socio-political and economic realities of change, ensuring that innovation is not just implemented, but integrated into a coherent industry-wide transformation strategy. The challenge is not whether construction should innovate – but how to ensure that innovation is meaningful, sustainable, and beneficial for all stakeholders

In that regard, there is plenty we could learn from a tub of marge.