Search results

This study examines organizational innovation in small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and develops an extensive framework of how innovation occurs, its end results in terms of positive, negative outcomes, and its impacts on business financial performance; using grounded methodology; interviews with entrepreneurs and executive experts from across industries. The study aims to fill gaps in the literature. Despite extensive research conducted on innovation, most focus on factors behind innovation and a company's innovativeness. The framework is useful to SMEs considering company-wide innovation. Transparent inputs and outputs enable companies to understand innovation processes, and its outcomes better as well as help monitor and implement individual innovation activities. The framework has a wide application, particularly, in an industry where innovation is hard to capture and understand. Using the model, we can determine innovation drivers, practices, and barriers as well as innovation inputs/outputs in different industries, thus promoting better management of innovation across a wide range of applications. Governments also require a better understanding of innovation, productivity, and operational efficiency to plan their policies in the promotion of innovation.

This chapter emphasizes the importance of potential and realized capabilities in building and sustaining social innovations. We present an assessment of the drivers and barriers to the development of social innovation ecosystems through the use of internal (absorptive capacities) and external organizational capabilities (open social innovation). A particular emphasis is placed on social innovation outcomes and impacts. The capability approach is particularly useful for measuring social innovation impacts and investigating the “micro-meso-macro” of linkages that underlie the process of social innovation.

Our methodological approach measures social innovations’ outcomes and impact through an aggregative model, which takes into consideration different forms of capabilities that are engendered in the process of or as a result of social innovation. This methodology highlights the importance of social innovation drivers and contexts in which knowledge exploration and exploitation lead to the creation of capabilities that help social innovators to respond to unfulfilled social needs.

The research presented in this chapter provides a new perspective on how the capability approach can be used to assess and measure individual and collective actions when facing social challenges.

Our research supports and complements the findings of the EU project SIMPACT an acronym for “Boosting the Impact of SI in Europe through Economic Underpinnings,” by highlighting the processes and outcomes and SI impact measurement.

The measurement of social innovation outcomes and impact has gained importance for policy makers and constitutes a strategic tool for designing policies in support of social entrepreneurs, social investors, and private and public organizations which participate in cocreating and implementing innovative projects.

The research presented in this chapter sheds light on the “micro-meso-macro” linkages that foster social innovation ecosystems, and offer valuable tools and guidelines to researchers, practitioners, and policymaker in the field of innovation in general and social innovation in particular.

This chapter explores the role of individual cognitive abilities in the radical innovation of business models and their value proposition. The focus on a specific cognitive construct – metacognition – contributes to understanding the specificities of “criticism,” an approach relevant to addressing the challenges of the radical innovation of value drivers. Based on empirical data, this exploratory research identifies the characteristic elements of criticism from a metacognition perspective, pinpointing the key moments and attitudes of innovators, i.e., cognition of own cognition. The analysis of the findings shows that successful innovators are able to leverage the perception and control of own cognition to more effectively develop and negotiate the radical innovation of the business model in their organization, going beyond the dichotomy between rational and affective mental states. This chapter concludes with a discussion and future research outlook.

The attention of scholars and policy makers towards the topic of innovation has consistently increased, especially in recent years. This is justified by the fact that innovation undoubtedly plays, today, a crucial role in driving a country’s economic growth, improving productivity and, more generally, enhancing overall societal well-being.

When the discourse around innovation focuses on its economic dimension, the strong intertwinement with entrepreneurship emerges. In line with this, focusing on research on innovation in organisations and, especially, innovation in relation to the figure of the entrepreneur is considered, plenty of studies have been carried on, over time, in many disciplines, analysing the role of the entrepreneur in relation to innovation from various different angles. However, especially when management studies are considered, we can notice a poor consideration of the role played by the gender of the entrepreneur. In line with this consideration, by means of a systematic literature review, this chapter aims to fill this literature gap focusing on the intertwinement that can be envisaged, in management studies, among the issues of entrepreneurship and innovation in the case of women-owned firms.

This study updates the discussion on demand-pull attention as a source of radical product innovation. Demand-pull attention shows an ex ante alignment with market characteristics and needs as opposed to pushing resources toward markets. The authors suggest a holistic framework and specify three dimensions of demand-pull attention: anticipated or revealed market demand, market environment, and external economic environment. Based on a large German longitudinal panel consisting of 941 firm-year observations from 2003 to 2013, the authors conceptualized the measurement of demand-pull dimensions’ attention and radical product innovation using computer-aided text analysis of annual reports. The authors analyzed the relationship between the attention that a firm pays to different demand-pull dimensions and the firm’s strategic intention to radically innovate; thus, the authors actually focused on the cognitive sources of radical product innovations. This chapter suggests that radical product innovation activities are positively driven by attention toward the market environment and market demand orientation. However, the hypothesis, which assumed a negative relationship between attention toward the external economic environment and radical innovation, could not be significantly confirmed. This demands a closer look into the underlying decision processes of firms when deciding on radical product innovations. With the theoretical grounding on the attention-based view of the firm, the authors contribute to a better understanding of the role that organizational cognition plays in innovation processes.

This chapter, which concludes the volume, develops what was argued in Chapter 7 in light of the need to identify policies capable to support sustainable, resilient and food-secure systems where the role of farmers, and small farmers in particular, as active drivers of change is fully recognized. The chapter presents a discussion on innovation policy guidelines consistent with the illustrated frameworks, and on the best governance arrangements, to support system change vis-à-vis pressures that are both internal and external to the sociotechnical networks (Smith, Stirling, & Berkhout, 2005). Attention is given to the definition of adequate measures to support transition towards a sustainable, resilient and food-secure system with a valorization of small farms' role. Finally, indications on how to assess the effectiveness and the efficiency of the public policies and supports are provided, highlighting the principles to be followed for the design of an effective and consistent monitoring and evaluation system. The discussion hinges on three questions, to be answered in the aim to find the most governance arrangements best suited to promote innovation processes: Who to involve in decision-making? What are the appropriate knowledge infrastructures? How to assess the effectiveness and the efficiency of the public policies and supports?

Purpose – In the recent redefinition of the European Commission's corporate social responsibility (CSR) strategy, attention is brought to CSR as a motor for innovation. However, literature in the area remains scarce. This chapter describes and discusses innovation as a consequence of a firm's CSR activities.

Methodology/approach – The empirical part of the chapter is based on the content analysis of 58 annual reports issued by the companies listed on the Swedish large-cap stock exchange. Their statements on CSR were coded to grasp the meanings of CSR, what areas they focus on, and types of innovation.

Findings – The study indicates that CSR innovation mostly focuses on environmental aspects. Companies that are less regulated by law in their operations tend to become more creative in their CSR approaches. CSR policy complements rather than enhances CSR innovation. CSR orientation is path-dependent on competences and position in the supply chain, and puts focus on incremental innovation. For product innovation, CSR may either appear as CSR in product (CSR-influenced material choices) or CSR in use.

Research limitations/implications – The data comprises established Swedish firms, however acting on international markets.

Social implications – Innovation and CSR are two important pillars for societal development. Finding motors that foster innovation, while increasing CSR awareness and using CSR as the driver for innovation, are important challenges for the future.

Originality/value of chapter – The study contributes to previous research through linking CSR orientation to innovation, describing types of innovation, and connecting their combined foci to different industry sectors.

Innovation is an increasingly distributed process, involving networks of geographically dispersed players with a variety of possible, and dynamic, value chain configurations (Fraser, Minshall, & Probert, 2005). ‘Open innovation’ is one term that has emerged to describe ‘[…] the use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively’ (Chesbrough, Vanhaverbeke, & West, 2006). This is contrasted with the ‘closed’ model of innovation where firms typically generate their own ideas which they then develop, produce, market, distribute and support.