This thesis investigates the implementation of Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy (MOIP) in Indonesia, using the country’s Net-Zero by 2060 commitment as a case study to examine how procedural justice influences stakeholder perceptions and policy outcomes in a lower-income context. While MOIP has gained prominence as a framework for addressing grand societal challenges, most empirical studies focus on high-income countries. Indonesia’s recent transition to upper-middle income status and its complex governance landscape provide a compelling setting to explore how missions are interpreted, implemented, and contested.

Using a qualitative case study approach and the policy arena framework, the research maps stakeholder interactions across four arenas: strategic, programmatic, implementation, and performance. Through eight semi-structured interviewsthe study identifies four key procedural injustices: limited participation, restricted inclusivity, lack of transparency, and barriers to legal recourse. These injustices undermine stakeholder trust, fragment mission interpretation, and hinder collaborative learning, ultimately reducing the effectiveness of MOIP.

The findings reveal that Indonesia’s hierarchical and siloed policy culture constrains reflexive learning and reinforces power asymmetries, allowing dominant actors to shape mission outcomes. The thesis argues that procedural justice should be treated as a strategic enabler of mission legitimacy and policy effectiveness. It recommends combining top-down structures with bottom-up co-creation approaches to foster inclusive and adaptive governance.

This research contributes to the literature on MOIP, energy justice, and transition governance by offering a context-sensitive analysis of mission implementation in lower-income countries. It highlights the importance of embedding procedural justice into mission design to ensure equitable, coordinated, and socially legitimate energy transitions.