Does Social Inducement Lead to Higher Open Innovation Investment? An Experimental Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I found the manuscript interesting and soundly. Some limitations of the research are reported by the authors at the end of the paper, but those are not preventing the publication of the work. 

Author Response

Many thanks for recognizing the value of this research. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I really enjoyed reviewing your work and I find your research very interesting. However, I think that some further improvements are needed to improve scientific and theoretical soundness, as well as the relevance of the results

I have some major concerns and some other minor comments reported below. I am confident that you will be able to solve these concerns and I look forward to receiving the updated version.

With my best regards

 

General comments

In general, some logical passages are missing, and several concepts need greater details. You keep for granted several passages which prevents the paper to be easy to follow and to be clear for non-expert audience. Please revise the document having this in mind.

 

Abstract section

You should briefly report how your outcomes contribute to previous literature and which relevant implications are provided to practitioners, managers and policymakers.

 

Introduction section

Before the first sentence of your Introduction section you should introduce what Open Innovation is [1–5] and its relevance for firm success [6–9]. This will help the readability of the manuscript for non-expert audience. Also the concept of Sustainability should be properly defined since the beginning [10–12]. Eventually you can also introduce the concept of Open Sustainable Innovation as the junction of Open Innovation and Sustainability focuses [13–16]. Only after this introduction you can start with what you have already written.

When you speak about intrinsic economic motivation of firms and individuals, you must clarify what intrinsic means [17,18].

Open Innovation is not a business model, but rather a framework for boosting innovating capabilities.

You mention risks in knowledge sharing and due to information protection. You should expand on these argumentation providing more details. You can take a look here [19–22].

“we examine whether informing open innovation” informing about what? Provide additional details.

Please explain if and how social inducement is different from nudging [23–26].

“are well informed of the (dis) advantages” do you mean just advantages, just disadvantages, either one of the two, or both? Please clarify.

You should briefly report how your outcomes contribute to previous literature and which relevant implications are provided to practitioners, managers and policymakers.

 

Theoretical Models section

Open Innovation and Open Source are two very different concepts. Please clarify this in the text.

 

Conclusions section

“We investigate open innovation” What? The adoption? Please clarify this point, now it is not clear.

You should explicitly report how your study advance previous literature and contribute to scholar knowledge about the topic, as well as provide relevant implications for practitioners and policymakers.

 

Bibliography of the review

1. Enkel, E.; Gassmann, O.; Chesbrough, H. Open R&D and open innovation: exploring the phenomenon. R&D Management 2009, 39, 311–316.
2. Cammarano, A.; Michelino, F.; Caputo, M. Open innovation practices for knowledge acquisition and their effects on innovation output. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 2019, 31, 1297–1313.
3. Mahdad, M.; De Marco, C.E.; Piccaluga, A.; Di Minin, A. Harnessing adaptive capacity to close the pandora’s box of open innovation. Industry and Innovation 2019, 1–21.
4. Chesbrough, H.; Bogers, M. Explicating open innovation: clarifying an emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. New Frontiers in Open Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press 2014.
5. Cammarano, A.; Michelino, F.; Lamberti, E.; Caputo, M. Accumulated stock of knowledge and current search practices: The impact on patent quality. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 2017, 120, 204–222.
6. Michelino, F.; Caputo, M.; Cammarano, A.; Lamberti, E. Inbound and Outbound Open Innovation: Organization and Performances. Journal of Technology Management and Innovation 2014, 9, 65–82.
7. Huizingh, E.K.R.E. Open innovation: State of the art and future perspectives. Technovation 2011, 31, 2–9.
8. Lichtenthaler, U. Outbound open innovation and its effect on firm performance: Examining environmental influences. R and D Management 2009, 39, 317–330.
9. Ahn, J.M.; Minshall, T.; Mortara, L. Open innovation: a new classification and its impact on firm performance in innovative SMEs. Journal of Innovation Management 2015, 3, 33–54.
10. Scholz, R.W. Sustainable digital environments: What major challenges is humankind facing? Sustainability (Switzerland) 2016, 8.
11. Liu, L. Sustainability: Living within one’s own ecological means. Sustainability 2009, 1, 1412–1430.
12. Franco, S.; Caroli, M.G.; Cappa, F.; Del Chiappa, G. Are you good enough? CSR, quality management and corporate financial performance in the hospitality industry. International Journal of Hospitality Management 2019, In Press, 102395.
13. Cappa, F.; Rosso, F.; Hayes, D. Monetary and Social Rewards for Crowdsourcing. Sustainability 2019, Vol. 11, Page 2834 2019, 11, 2834.
14. Arcese, G.; Flammini, S.; Lucchetti, M.C.; Martucci, O. Evidence and experience of open sustainability innovation practices in the food sector. Sustainability (Switzerland) 2015, 7, 8067–8090.
15. Arcese, G.; Flammini, S.; Lucchetti, M.C.; Martucci, O. Open Sustainability Innovation in the Food Sector. World Sustainability Forum 2014 2014, 7, 8067–8090.
16. Arcese, G.; Lucchetti, M.; Merli, R. Social Life Cycle Assessment as a Management Tool: Methodology for Application in Tourism. Sustainability 2013, 5, 3275–3287.
17. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. Self-determination theory in health care and its relations to motivational interviewing: a few comments. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 2012, 9, 1–6.
18. Deci, E.L.; Ryan, R.M. The “What” and “Why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry 2000, 11, 227–268.
19. Cappa, F.; Oriani, R.; Pinelli, M.; De Massis, A. When does crowdsourcing benefit firm stock market performance. Research Policy 2019, 48, 103825.
20. Afuah, A.; Tucci, C.L. Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review 2012, 3, 355–375.
21. Schenk, E.; Guittard, C. Crowdsourcing : What can be Outsourced to the Crowd , and Why ? Innovation 2009, 1–29.
22. Laursen, K.; Salter, A.J. The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external search and collaboration. Research Policy 2014, 43, 867–878.
23. Lawton, G. A nudge in the right direction. New Scientist 2013, 218, 3.
24. Rivers, N.; Shenstone-Harris, S.; Young, N. Using nudges to reduce waste? The case of Toronto’s plastic bag levy. Journal of Environmental Management 2017.
25. Sunstein, C.R. Nudges, Agency, and Abstraction: A Reply to Critics. Review of Philosophy and Psychology 2015, 6, 511–529.
26. Lehner, M.; Mont, O.; Heiskanen, E. Nudging – A promising tool for sustainable consumption behaviour? Journal of Cleaner Production 2016, 134, 166–177.

Author Response

please receive our reply in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have enjoyed reading this article. Overall, it is written well. I have some comments that hopefully increase potential readability and citation.

 

I think a major issue in the paper is twofold (they are interrelated). First, clear definition of open innovation and traditional innovation is needed. Second, at least one paragraph is needed to discuss about the importance of innovation and open innovation. This journal has a broader readership and many readers may not be familiar with innovation let alone open innovation. Similarly, there are different understanding of innovation in organizations (is it only invention [a narrow view related to only technological innovation], or a general view of new ideas or practice implemented by organizations).

 

Therefore, I recommend the authors to start their article in a general paragraph such as “Studies on private sector innovation (Popa et al., 2017; Sapprasert & Clausen, 2012; Urbano et al., 2019) and public sector innovation (Arundel et al., 2019; Clausen et al., 2019; Demircioglu, 2019) have increased in recent years. According to these studies, innovation can be defined as …. [a definition from these studies may be: novel ideas implemented by organizations that may be related to product, process, marketing]… However, these definition is based on traditional innovation [if my understanding is correct]… There is also another innovation concept which can be defined as …..  (cite at least two studies, such as Bogers et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2012)

Then, your first paragraph can be the second paragraph (Open innovation has received increasing attention in sustainability studies..)

 

Arundel, Anthony, Carter Bloch, and Barry Ferguson. 2019. "Advancing innovation in the public sector: Aligning innovation measurement with policy goals." Research Policy 48 (3):789–798.

Bonesso, Sara, Fabrizio Gerli, Claudio Pizzi, and Richard Eleftherios Boyatzis. 2019. "The role of intangible human capital in innovation diversification: linking behavioral competencies with different types of innovation." Industrial and Corporate Change.

Bogers, Marcel, Henry Chesbrough, and Carlos Moedas. 2018. "Open innovation: research, practices, and policies." California Management Review 60 (2):5-16.

Clausen, Tommy Høyvarde, Mehmet Akif Demircioglu, and Gry A Alsos. 2019. "Intensity of Innovation in Public Sector Organizations: The Role of Push and Pull Factors." Public Administration. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12617.

Demircioglu, Mehmet Akif. 2019. "The effects of organizational and demographic context for innovation implementation in public organizations." Public Management Review:1-24.

Lee, Sang M, Taewon Hwang, and Donghyun Choi. 2012. "Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries." Management Decision 50 (1):147-162.

Popa, Simona, Pedro Soto-Acosta, and Isabel Martinez-Conesa. 2017. "Antecedents, moderators, and outcomes of innovation climate and open innovation: An empirical study in SMEs." Technological Forecasting and Social Change 118:134-142.

Sapprasert, Koson, and Tommy Høyvarde Clausen. 2012. "Organizational innovation and its effects." Industrial and Corporate Change 21 (5):1283-1305.

Urbano, David, Andreu Turro, and Sebastian Aparicio. 2019. "Innovation through R&D activities in the European context: antecedents and consequences." The Journal of Technology Transfer:1-24.

 

 

Minor comments

I think the abstract needs to be re-written. First, this sentence does not make sense: “…promote open innovation by conducting a laboratory experiment” Does conducting a lab experiment leads open innovation? So, please revise it. Also, please mention implications/discussion in the abstract.

Figure 1: Y axes is not clear. Please provide a title there.

The limitation paragraph (the last paragraph) needs to be extended. The authors should at least talk about whether causal claims are possible (i.e. internal validity) and external validity.

Do not complete the paper with a limitation. The last paragraph of an academic article should be (typically) either a conclusion paragraph or a future research directions. Therefore, please add a paragraph and discuss future research direction, or provide a conclusion.

Author Response

please receive our reply in the attached document.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf