The case studies investigate political bargaining as well as innovation processes around efforts to reduce environmental pollution in pulp production. The development and diffusion of corresponding environmental technologies depend on their technical viability, their economic viability, the (global) socioeconomic structures of the pulp and paper industry, environmental policy regulations, and situational circumstances, reflecting the interests and relative power of actors involved. Taking into account a time period of nearly 30 years (1970 - 2000) various innovative efforts are summarized. These environmental innovations are examples of different approaches and foci to deal with environmental problems of pulp production by appropriate technologies, namely wastewater purification by aluminium oxide or by combined aerobic and anaerobic biological treatment, substitution of molecular chlorine bleaching by peroxide bleaching or by high pressure oxygen bleaching, and alternative pulping technologies, i.e. the ASAM process and the Organocell process. Because structural framework conditions, particularly the availability of public funds, left considerable scope of action, situational conditions often paved the way for starting an environmental R&D; project and for its success or failure. In the 1970s the (perceived) pressure of environmental problems was so strong that environmental regulation of pulp production was considered necessary. Because of fierce competition on the world market, however, the pulp industry could hardly afford on a short-term basis the investments required for environmental protection measures without public subsidies. Therefore, ETP contributed significant funding to allow for the development of a considerable number of technological options in the 1970s and 1980s. Most of them failed, however, for various reasons, but some of them succeeded to become established practice since about the 1990s. EP and ETP played a key role in achieving large reductions of ecologically hazardous substances emitted during pulp production, by introducing a wastewater levy, by setting increasingly tighter environmental (emission and ambient quality control) standards, and by funding the development of corresponding environmental technologies. A good deal of coordination of EP and ETP took place, which influenced both the standard setting process and technology development. Whereas EP activities met fierce opposition of the pulp and paper industry in the 1970s and 1980s, involvement in related bargaining processes, in conjunction with an increasing environmental concern and a corresponding greening of industry in general, led to social learning processes of this industry which resulted in growing commitment and a voluntary declaration in favour of ecologically sound pulp production in the 1990s. A campaign of Greenpeace attacking environmental problems of pulp and paper production and public debate on chlorine-free paper probably enhanced this change in attitude. However, the corresponding actual demand of publishers for chlorine- free paper and clear environmental regulations were the main driving forces for improved environmental protection and consciousness in pulp production. Thus, different phases of development with varying attitudes and approaches of the main actors towards environmental protection and technology development in pulp production can be distinguished: environmental problem pressure and installation of available (end-of-pipe) technologies (1970-1980), generous public funding of environmental technology development and preparation of environmental regulation (1975- 1985), passing and enhancing environmental standards and diffusion of environmental innovations (1980-1995), further progress and differentiation of environmental regulation and environmental technologies applied (1990-2000). These changing contextual conditions implied differing policy strategies and tactics of EP and ETP.
