How Open Innovation Practices Deliver Societal Benefits
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Innovation Features That Increase Societal Impact
2.1. Societal Impact of Innovation: Benefits, Exclusion, Detrimental and Cumulative Effects
2.2. Innovation Attributes That Mitigate Benefit Gaps
3. Open Innovation and Societal Impact
3.1. Method and Data
3.2. Findings on Open Innovation Practices That Deliver Societal Impact
4. Discussion and Conclusions on Societal Impact of Open Innovation Practices
5. Limitations and Further Research
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Open Innovation Approach | Key Articles—Sources (Authors and Year of Publication) |
---|---|
Co-creation | Aarras, N., Rönkä, M., Kamppinen, M., Tolvanen, H., & Vihervaara, P. (2014). Environmental technology and regional sustainability—The role of life-based design. Technology in Society, 36, 52–59. Franke, N., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). Satisfying heterogeneous user needs via innovation toolkits: the case of Apache security software. Research Policy, 32, 7, 1199–1215. Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Steger, C. J. (2009). Testing the value of customization: when do customers really prefer products tailored to their preferences? Journal of Marketing, 73, 5, 103–121. Franke, N., Schreier, M., & Kaiser, U. (2010). The “I designed it myself” effect in mass customization. Management Science, 56, 1, 125–140. Füller, J., Mühlbacher, H., Matzler, K., & Jawecki, G. (2010). Consumer empowerment through Internet-based co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems, 26, 3, 71. Keeys, L. A., & Huemann, M. (2017). Project benefits co-creation: Shaping sustainable development benefits. International Journal of Project Management, 35, 6, 1196–1212. Thomke, S., & Von Hippel, E. (2002). Customers as innovators—A new way to create value. Harvard Business Review, 80, 4, 74–81. Von Hippel, E. (1998). Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Management Science, 44, 5, 629–644. Von Hippel, E. (2001). Perspective: User toolkits for innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 18, 4, 247–257. Von Hippel, E., & Katz, R. (2002). Shifting innovation to users via toolkits. Management Science, 48, 7, 821–833. |
Crowdfunding | Belleflamme, P., Lambert, T., & Schwienbacher, A. (2014). Crowdfunding: Tapping the right crowd. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 5, 585–609. Burtch, G., Ghose, A., & Wattal, S. (2013). An empirical examination of the antecedents and consequences of contribution patterns in crowd-funded markets. Information Systems Research, 24, 3, 499–519. Calic, G., & Mosakowski, E. (2016). Kicking off social entrepreneurship: how a sustainability orientation influences crowdfunding success. The Journal of Management Studies, 53, 5, 738. Dragojlovic, N., & Lynd, L. D. (2014). Crowdfunding drug development: the state of play in oncology and rare diseases. Drug Discovery Today, 19, 11, 1775–1780. Hildebrand, T., Puri, M., & Rocholld, J. (2017). Adverse incentives in crowdfunding. Management Science, 63, 3, 587–608. Mollick, E. (2014). The dynamics of crowdfunding: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 1, 1–16. Mollick, E., & Robb, A. (2016). Democratizing innovation and capital access: the role of crowdfunding. California Management Review, 58, 2, 72–87. Ordanini, A., Miceli, L., Pizzetti, M., & Parasuraman, A. (2011). Crowd-funding: transforming customers into investors through innovative service platforms. Journal of Service Management, 22, 4, 443–470. Stanko, M. A., & Henard, D. H. (2017). Toward a better understanding of crowdfunding, openness and the consequences for innovation. Research Policy, 46, 4, 784. Younkin, P., & Kashkooli, K. (2016). What problem does crowdfunding solve? California Management Review, 58, 2, 20–43. |
Crowdsourcing | Afuah, A., & Tucci, C. L. (2012). Crowdsourcing as a solution to distant search. Academy of Management Review, 37, 3, 355–375. Barbier, G., Zafarani, R., Gao, H., Fung, G., & Liu, H. (2012). Maximizing benefits from crowdsourced data. Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 18, 3, 257–279. Brabham, D., Ribisl, K., Kirchner, T., & Bernhardt, J. (2014). Crowdsourcing applications for public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 46, 2, 179–187. Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Salter, A. (2006). The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: the case of Procter & Gamble. R & D Management, 36, 3, 333–346. Garcia Martinez, M. (2015). Solver engagement in knowledge sharing in crowdsourcing communities: Exploring the link to creativity. Research Policy, 44, 8, 1419–1430. Lee, S., Hwang, T., & Choi, D. (2012). Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Management Decision, 50, 1, 147–162. Luengo-Oroz, M. A., Arranz, A., & Frean, J. (2012). Crowdsourcing malaria parasite quantification: an online game for analyzing images of infected thick blood smears. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14, 6, 207–219. Piller, F. T., & Walcher, D. (2006). Toolkits for idea competitions: a novel method to integrate users in new product development. R & D Management, 36, 3, 307–318. Sutherlin, G. (2013). A voice in the crowd: Broader implications for crowdsourcing translation during crisis. Journal of Information Science, 39, 3, 397–409. Swan, M. (2012). Crowdsourced health research studies: An important emerging complement to clinical trials in the public health research ecosystem. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 14, 2, 1–9. |
Open access | Al-Atabi, M., & Deboer, J. (2014). Teaching entrepreneurship using Massive Open Online Course (MOOC). Technovation, 34, 4, 261–264. Albors, J., Ramos, J. C., & Hervasa, J. L. (2008). New learning network paradigms: Communities of objectives, crowdsourcing, wikis and open source. International Journal of Information Management, 28, 3, 194–202. Annabi, C. A., & Wilkins, S. (2016). The use of MOOCs in transnational higher education for accreditation of prior learning, programme delivery, and professional development. The International Journal of Educational Management, 30, 6, 959–975. Feess, E., & Scheufen, M. (2016). Academic copyright in the publishing game: a contest perspective. European Journal of Law and Economics, 42, 2, 263–294. Hansen, J. D. N., & Reich, J. (2015). Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses. Science, 350, 6265, 1245–1248. Hew, K. F., & Cheung, W. S. (2014). Students’ and instructors’ use of massive open online courses (MOOCs): Motivations and challenges. Educational Research Review, 12, 45–58. Huang, L., Zhang, J., & Liu, Y. (2017). Antecedents of student MOOC revisit intention: Moderation effect of course difficulty. International Journal of Information Management, 37, 2, 84–91. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons, 59, 4, 441–450. Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on Massive open online courses. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12, 7, 74–93. Nwagwu, W. E. (2013). Open access initiatives in Africa—structure, incentives and disincentives. Journal of Academic Librarianship, 39, 1, 3–10. |
Open science | Bagla, P. (2012). Crowd-sourcing drug discovery. Science, 335, 6071, 909–909. Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: a developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. Bioscience, 59, 11, 977–984. Cook-Deegan, R. (2007). The science commons in health research: structure, function, and value. Journal of Technology Transfer, 32, 3, 133–156. Franzoni, C., & Sauermann, H. (2014). Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Research Policy, 43, 1, 1–20. Johnson, M., Hannah, C., Acton, L., Popovici, R., Karanth, K., & Weinthal, E. (2014). Network environmentalism: Citizen scientists as agents for environmental advocacy. Global Environmental Change-Human And Policy Dimensions, 29, 235–245. Jong, S., & Slavova, K. (2014). When publications lead to products: The open science conundrum in new product development. Research Policy, 43, 4, 645–654. Levrel, H., Fontaine, B., Henry, P.-Y., Jiguet, F., Julliard, R., Kerbiriou, C., & Couvet, D. (2010). Balancing state and volunteer investment in biodiversity monitoring for the implementation of CBD indicators: A French example. Ecological Economics, 69, 7, 1580–1586. Price, C. A., & Lee, H.-S. (2013). Changes in participants’ scientific attitudes and epistemological beliefs during an astronomical citizen science project. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 50, 7, 773–801. Walsh, J., & Huang, H. (2014). Local context, academic entrepreneurship and open science: Publication secrecy and commercial activity among Japanese and US scientists. Research Policy, 43, 2, 245. West, J. (2008). Commercializing open science: deep space communications as the lead market for Shannon theory, 1960-73. Journal of Management Studies, 45, 8, 1506–1532. |
Open source | Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. M. (2006). Open source software user communities: A study of participation in Linux user groups. Management Science, 52, 7, 1099–1115. Comino, S., & Manenti, F. (2005). Government policies supporting open source software for the mass market. Review of Industrial Organization, 26, 2, 217–240. Dahlander, L., & Magnusson, M. G. (2005). Relationships between open source software companies and communities: Observations from Nordic firms. Research Policy, 34, 4, 481–493. Henkel, J., Schoberl, S., & Alexy, O. (2014). The emergence of openness: How and why firms adopt selective revealing in open innovation. Research Policy, 43, 5, 879–890. Lakhani, K. R., & Von Hippel, E. (2003). How open source software works: “free” user-to-user assistance. Research Policy, 32, 6, 923–943. O’Mahony, S., & Ferraro, F. (2007). The emergence of governance in an open source community. Academy of Management Journal, 50, 5, 1079–1106. Pisano, G. (2006). Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. Research Policy, 35, 8, 1122–1130. Vitharana, P., King, J., & Chapman, H. S. (2010). Impact of internal open source development on reuse: participatory reuse in action. Journal of Management Information Systems, 27, 2, 277–304. Wang, J., Hu, M. Y., & Shanker, M. (2012). Human agency, social networks, and FOSS project success. Journal of Business Research, 65, 7, 977–984. Wu, C.-G., Gerlach, J. H., & Young, C. E. (2007). An empirical analysis of open source software developers’ motivations and continuance intentions. Information & Management, 44, 3, 253–262. |
Patent pools * | Cox, K. L. (2012). The Medicines Patent Pool: promoting access and innovation for life-saving medicines through voluntary licenses. Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal, 4, 293–381. Delcamp, H. (2015). Are patent pools a way to help patent owners enforce their rights? International Review of Law & Economics, 41, 68–76. Hoen Ellen ’T, Berger Jonathan, Calmy Alexandra, & Moon Suerie. (2011). Driving a decade of change: HIV/AIDS, patents and access to medicines for all. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 14, 1, 15. Joshi, A. M., & Nerkar, A. (2011). When do strategic alliances inhibit innovation by firms? Evidence from patent pools in the global optical disc industry. Strategic Management Journal, 32, 11, 1139–1160. Lerner, J., & Tirole, J. (2004). Efficient patent pools. American Economic Review, 94, 3, 691. Pascual, F. (2014). Intellectual property rights, market competition and access to affordable antiretrovirals. Antiviral Therapy, 19, 57–67. Rey, P., & Salant, D. (2012). Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 30, 6, 518. Vakili, K. (2016). Collaborative promotion of technology standards and the impact on innovation, industry structure, and organizational capabilities: evidence from modern patent pools. Organization Science, 27, 6, 1504–1524. van Zimmeren, E., van Neste, S., Matthijs, G., van Haverbeke, W., & van Overwalle, G. (2011). Patent pools and clearinghouses in the life sciences. Trends in Biotechnology, 29, 11, 569–576. Verbeure, B., van Zimmeren, E., Matthijs, G., & Van Overwalle, G. (2006). Patent pools and diagnostic testing. Trends in Biotechnology, 24, 3, 115–120. |
PDPs | Barr, D. (2007). A research protocol to evaluate the effectiveness of public-private partnerships as a means to improve health and welfare systems worldwide. American Journal of Public Health, 97, 1, 19–25. Bishai, D. M., Champion, C., Steele, M. E., & Thompson, L. (2011). Product development partnerships hit their stride: lessons from developing a meningitis vaccine for Africa. Health Affairs, 30, 6, 1058–64. Breitstein, J., & Spigelman, M. (2013). The role of product development partnerships in advancing the development of drugs for unmet needs. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 93, 6, 468–470. Chataway, J., Hanlin, R., Mugwagwa, J., & Muraguri, L. (2010). Global health social technologies Reflections on evolving theories and landscapes. Research Policy, 39, 10, 1277–1288. Mahoney, R. (2011). Product development partnerships: Case studies of a new mechanism for health technology innovation. Health Research Policy and Systems, 9, 33. Moran, M., Guzman, J., Ropars, A. L., & Illmer, A. (2010). The role of product development partnerships in research and development for neglected diseases. International Health, 2, 2, 114–122. Munoz, V., Visentin, F., Foray, D., & Gaule, P. (2015). Can medical products be developed on a non-profit basis? Exploring product development partnerships for neglected diseases. Science and Public Policy, 42, 3, 315–338. Nwaka, S., & Ridley, R. G. (2003). Virtual drug discovery and development for neglected diseases through public-private partnerships. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, 2, 11, 919–928. Pratt, B., & Loff, B. (2013). Linking research to global health equity: The contribution of product development partnerships to access to medicines and research capacity building. American Journal of Public Health, 103, 11, 1968–1978. Reich, M. R. (2000). Public-private partnerships for public health. Nature Medicine, 6, 6, 617. |
Problem-centred innovation networks | Behera, S. K., Kim, J.-H., Lee, S.-Y., Suh, S., & Park, H.-S. (2012). Evolution of “designed” industrial symbiosis networks in the Ulsan Eco-industrial Park: “research and development into business” as the enabling framework. Journal of Cleaner Production, 29, 30, 103–112. Eberhard, R., Johnston, N., & Everingham, J.-A. (2013). A collaborative approach to address the cumulative impacts of mine-water discharge: Negotiating a cross-sectoral waterway partnership in the Bowen Basin, Australia. Resources Policy, 38, 4, 678–687. Gupta, A. K., Sinha, R., Koradia, D., Patel, R., Parmar, M., Rohit, P., Vivekanandan, P. (2003). Mobilizing grassroots’ technological innovations and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical capital. Futures, 35, 9, 975–987. King, A. (2007). Cooperation between corporations and environmental groups: A transaction cost perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32, 3, 889–900. Patala, S., Hamalainen, S., Jalkala, A., & Pesonen, H.-L. (2014). Towards a broader perspective on the forms of eco-industrial networks. Journal of Cleaner Production, 82, 166–178. Poncet, J., Kuper, M., & Chiche, J. (2010). Wandering off the paths of planned innovation: The role of formal and informal intermediaries in a large-scale irrigation scheme in Morocco. Agricultural Systems, 103, 4, 171–179. Selsky, J., & Parker, B. (2005). Cross-sector partnerships to address social issues: challenges to theory and practice. Journal of Management, 31, 6, 849–873. Seuring, S. (2004). Integrated chain management and supply chain management comparative analysis and illustrative cases. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 8–10, 1059–1071. Van Der Valk, T., Chappin, M. M. H., & Gijsbers, G. W. (2011). Evaluating innovation networks in emerging technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 78, 1, 25–39. Wossen, T., Berger, T., & Di Falco, S. (2015). Social capital, risk preference and adoption of improved farm land management practices in Ethiopia. Agricultural Economics, 46, 1, 81–97. |
Technology platforms | Aoki, R., & Schiff, A. (2008). Promoting access to intellectual property: patent pools, copyright collectives, and clearinghouses. R & D Management, 38, 2, 189–204. Aoki, R., & Schiff, A. (2010). Intellectual property clearinghouses: The effects of reduced transaction costs in licensing. Information Economics And Policy, 22, 3, 218–227. Boudreau, K. (2010). Open platform strategies and innovation: granting access vs. devolving control. Management Science, 56, 10, 1849–1872. Hall, B. H., & Helmers, C. (2013). Innovation and diffusion of clean/green technology: Can patent commons help? Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 66, 1, 33–51. Proskuryakova, L., Meissner, D., & Rudnik, P. (2017). The use of technology platforms as a policy tool to address research challenges and technology transfer. Journal of Technology Transfer, 42, 1, 206–227. Ricard, L. M. (2016). Aligning innovation with grand societal challenges: Inside the European Technology Platforms in wind, and carbon capture and storage. Science and Public Policy, 43, 2, 169–183. Robinson, D., Rip, A., & Mangematin, V. (2007). Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology. Research Policy, 36, 6, 871. Siedlok, F., Smart, P., & Gupta, A. (2010). Convergence and reorientation via open innovation: the emergence of nutraceuticals. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 22, 5, 571–592. Van Hoorebeek, M., & Onzivu, W. (2010). The Eco-Patent Commons and environmental technology transfer: implications for efforts to tackle climate change. Carbon & Climate Law Review: CCLR, 4, 1, 13–29. Van Overwalle, G., van Zimmeren, E., Verbeure, B., & Matthijs, G. (2006). Science and society—Models for facilitating access to patents on genetic inventions. Nature Reviews Genetics, 7, 2, 143–148. |
Appendix B
Coded Categories | Short Description | Examples |
---|---|---|
I-1 Inclusiveness (contribution) | Openness to contribute resources, knowledge, requirements/specification to innovation, scale: restricted, medium, high | ‘engaging customers/stakeholders’, ‘firms participating’, ‘included stakeholders’, ‘participants’; ‘special need groups’ highest degree when unconditional to skills and resources restricted: very exclusive targeted groups, e.g., specific lead users without representing unserved groups medium: targeted groups: companies collaborate with specific user group, e.g., co-creation high: all individuals and organizations can contribute, e.g., crowdsourcing, open access, open source |
I-2 Inclusiveness (use) | Openness to use the outcome, scale: restricted, medium, high | ‘free access/use’, open access/sharing’, ‘no cost’ ‘unrestricted access/use’ highest degree when unconditional to skills and resources restricted: use limited to conditions, e.g., only license to manufacture for specific user groups or in specific countries medium: broader use, e.g., social innovations resulting from crowdfunding or PDPs, high: all interested organizations and individuals can use it, e.g., open access, open source, open science |
(I-I) Adequate information and communication channels | Information and communication channels are designed to reach all members who could benefit from the innovation | High reach through removing access barriers, deliberate reflexion on goals and purpose, and how to reach the ones that should benefit, high through inclusion in innovation process. E.g.: open access publishing Medium effect: massive open online courses, as they are free of charge but yet have failed to reach poor and uneducated people (no adequate communication channels) Low effect: not identified in open innovation practices, as they all increase information flow and engagement with beneficiaries |
References
- Rogers, E.M. Diffusion of Innovation; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Swanson, T.M. Biotechnology, Agriculture and the Developing World: The Distributional Implications of Technological Change; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2002. [Google Scholar]
- Bhatt, P.; Ahmad, A.J.; Roomi, M.A. Social innovation with open source software: User engagement and development chal-lenges in India. Technovation 2016, 52, 28–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stilgoe, J.; Owen, R.; Macnaghten, P. Developing a framework for responsible innovation. Res. Policy 2013, 42, 1568–1580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Munoz, V.; Visentin, F.; Foray, D.; Gaulé, P. Can medical products be developed on a non-profit basis? Exploring product development partnerships for neglected diseases. Sci. Public Policy 2014, 42, 315–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, P.; Zejnilovic, L.; Canhão, H.; von Hippel, E. Innovation by patients with rare diseases and chronic needs. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 2015, 10, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Chesbrough, H.; Di Minin, A. Open social innovation. In New Frontiers in Open Innovation; Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., West, J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 169–188. [Google Scholar]
- Chalmers, D.M. Social innovation: An exploration of the barriers faced by innovating organizations in the social economy. Local Econ. J. Local Econ. Policy Unit 2012, 28, 17–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmes, S.; Smart, P. Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: A corporate social responsibility perspective. R&D Manag. 2009, 39, 394–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Schomberg, R. A Vision of Responsible Research and Innovation. In Responsible Innovation; Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M., Eds.; Wiley: London, UK, 2013; pp. 51–74. [Google Scholar]
- Clarkson, P.J.; Coleman, R.; Keates, S.; Lebbon, C. Inclusive Design: Design for the Whole Population; Springer: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kaplinsky, R. Schumacher meets Schumpeter: Appropriate technology below the radar. Res. Policy 2011, 40, 193–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Edwards-Schachter, M.; Wallace, M.L. ‘Shaken, but not stirred’: Sixty years of defining social innovation. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2017, 119, 64–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Owen, R.; Stilgoe, J.; Macnaghten, P.; Gorman, M.; Fisher, E.; Guston, D. A Framework for Responsible Innovation. In Responsible Innovation; Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M., Eds.; Wiley: London, UK, 2013; pp. 27–50. [Google Scholar]
- Fichter, K.; Clausen, J. Diffusion Dynamics of Sustainable Innovation: Insights on Diffusion Patterns Based on the Analysis of 100 Sustainable Product and Service Innovations. J. Innov. Manag. 2016, 4, 30–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Blanc, D.; Roehri, R.A. Back to Our Common Future: Sustainable Development in the 21st Century (SD21) Project, Summary for Policymakers, United Nations. 2012. Available online: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/UN-DESA_Back_Common_Future_En.pdf (accessed on 8 December 2020).
- Wieland, R.; Ravensbergen, S.; Gregr, E.J.; Satterfield, T.; Chan, K.M.A. Debunking trickle-down ecosystem services: The fallacy of omnipotent, homogeneous beneficiaries. Ecol. Econ. 2016, 121, 175–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, H.; Kachani, S.; Shmatov, K. Optimal product introduction and life cycle pricing policies for multiple product generations under competition. J. Revenue Pricing Manag. 2008, 8, 438–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chipman, J.S.; Tian, G. Detrimental externalities, pollution rights, and the “Coase theorem”. Econ. Theory 2011, 49, 309–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lehmann, P. Justifying a Policy Mix for Pollution Control: A Review of Economic Literature. J. Econ. Surv. 2010, 26, 71–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Eberhard, R.; Johnston, N.; Everingham, J.-A. A collaborative approach to address the cumulative impacts of mine-water discharge: Negotiating a cross-sectoral waterway partnership in the Bowen Basin, Australia. Resour. Policy 2013, 38, 678–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witter, S.G.; Robotham, M.P.; Carrasco, D.A. Sustainable adoption of conservation practices by upland farmers in the Dominican Republic. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1996, 51, 249–254. [Google Scholar]
- Wossen, T.; Berger, T.; Di Falco, S. Social capital, risk preference and adoption of improved farm land management practices in Ethiopia. Agric. Econ. 2015, 46, 81–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- George, G.; McGahan, A.M.; Prabhu, J. Innovation for Inclusive Growth: Towards a Theoretical Framework and a Research Agenda. J. Manag. Stud. 2012, 49, 661–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lezaun, J.; Montgomery, C.M. The Pharmaceutical Commons: Sharing and Exclusion in Global Health Drug Development. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 2015, 40, 3–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kulve, H.T.; Rip, A. Constructing Productive Engagement: Pre-engagement Tools for Emerging Technologies. Sci. Eng. Ethic 2011, 17, 699–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lenton, T.M.; Rockström, J.; Gaffney, O.; Rahmstorf, S.; Richardson, K.; Steffen, W.; Schellnhuber, H.J. Climate tipping points—Too risky to bet against. Nat. Cell Biol. 2019, 575, 592–595. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmermann, L.; Dombrowski, A.; Völker, C.; Wagner, M. Are bioplastics and plant-based materials safer than conventional plastics? In vitro toxicity and chemical composition. Environ. Int. 2020, 145, 106066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dou, J.; Han, X. How does the industry mobility affect pollution industry transfer in China: Empirical test on Pollution Haven Hypothesis and Porter Hypothesis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davies, S.R.; Selin, C.; Gano, G.; Pereira, Â.G. Citizen engagement and urban change: Three case studies of material deliberation. Cities 2012, 29, 351–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Puente-Rodríguez, D.; Van Slobbe, E.; Al, I.A.; Lindenbergh, D. Knowledge co-production in practice: Enabling environmental management systems for ports through participatory research in the Dutch Wadden Sea. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 55, 456–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baú, V. Citizen engagement in peacebuilding: A communication for development approach to rebuilding peace from the bottom-up. Prog. Dev. Stud. 2016, 16, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kyamusugulwa, P.M. Participatory Development and Reconstruction: A literature review. Third World Q. 2013, 34, 1265–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Iversen, T.; Soskice, D. Electoral systems and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 2006, 100, 165–180. [Google Scholar]
- Eppinger, E.; Tinnemann, P. Technology transfer of publicly funded research results from academia to industry: Societal responsibilities? In Responsible Innovation, Volume 1: Innovative Solutions for Global Issues; van den Hoven, J., Romijn, H., Swier-stra, T., Doorn, N., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 67–88. [Google Scholar]
- Collingridge, D. The Social Control of Technology; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
- Buckley, J.; Thompson, P.B.; Whyte, K.P. Collingridge’s dilemma and the early ethical assessment of emerging technology: The case of nanotechnology enabled biosensors. Technol. Soc. 2017, 48, 54–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kobayashi, M. Participatory sustainability research for risk management and leadership development. In Sustainable Living with Environmental Risks; Kaneko, N., Yoshiura, S., Kobayashi, M., Eds.; Springer: Tokyo, Japan, 2014; pp. 239–252. [Google Scholar]
- Mitcham, C. Co-responsibility for research integrity. Sci. Eng. Ethic 2003, 9, 273–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mirvis, P.; Herrera, M.E.B.; Googins, B.; Albareda, L. Corporate social innovation: How firms learn to innovate for the greater good. J. Bus. Res. 2016, 69, 5014–5021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grinbaum, A.; Groves, C. What is “responsible” about responsible innovation? Understanding the ethical issues. In Responsible Innovation: Managing the Responsible Emergence of Science and Innovation in Society; Owen, R., Bessant, J., Heintz, M., Eds.; Wiley: London, UK, 2013; pp. 119–142. [Google Scholar]
- Siegel, D. Green management matters only if it yields more green: An economic/strategic perspective. Strat. Dir. 2010, 26, 5–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, A.; Stirling, A.; Berkhout, F. The governance of sustainable socio-technical transitions. Res. Policy 2005, 34, 1491–1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Frauenberger, C.; Good, J.; Keay-Bright, W. Designing technology for children with special needs: Bridging perspectives through participatory design. CoDesign 2011, 7, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Von Hippel, E. Economics of product development by users: The impact of “sticky” local information. Manag. Sci. 1998, 44, 629–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mollick, E.; Robb, A. Democratizing Innovation and Capital Access: The Role of Crowdfunding. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2016, 58, 72–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Younkin, P.; Kashkooli, K. What problem does crowdfunding solve? Calif. Manag. Rev. 2016, 58, 20–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dodgson, M.; Gann, D.M.; Salter, A. The role of technology in the shift towards open innovation: The case of Procter & Gamble. R&D Manag. 2006, 36, 333–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piller, F.; Walcher, D. Toolkits for idea competitions: A novel method to integrate users in new product development. R&D Manag. 2006, 36, 307–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Albors, J.; Ramos, J.C.; Hervas, J.L. New learning network paradigms: Communities of objectives, crowdsourcing, wikis and open source. Int. J. Inf. Manag. Sci. 2008, 28, 194–202. [Google Scholar]
- Hansen, J.; Reich, J. Democratizing education? Examining access and usage patterns in massive open online courses. Science 2015, 350, 1245–1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Strahilevitz, L.J.; Benkler, Y. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. Yale Law J. 2007, 116, 1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Osterloh, M.; Rota, S. Open source software development: Just another case of collective invention? Res. Policy 2007, 36, 157–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bagla, P. Crowd-Sourcing Drug Discovery. Science 2012, 335, 909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Franzoni, C.; Sauermann, H. Crowd science: The organization of scientific research in open collaborative projects. Res. Policy 2014, 43, 1–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Cox, K.L. Investment in energy efficiency: Do the characteristics of investments matter? Hastings Sci. Technol. Law J. 2012, 4, 293–381. [Google Scholar]
- Moran, M.; Guzman, J.; Ropars, A.; Illmer, A. The role of Product Development Partnerships in research and development for neglected diseases. Int. Health 2010, 2, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, B.H.; Helmers, C. Innovation and diffusion of clean/green technology: Can patent commons help? J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 2013, 66, 33–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Van Overwalle, G.; van Zimmeren, E.; Verbeure, B.; Matthijs, G. Science and society: Models for facilitating access to patents on genetic inventions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2006, 7, 143–148. [Google Scholar]
- Muwanguzi, S.; Musambira, G.W. The adoption of open source software in Uganda: Analyzing stakeholders and their underlying interests. Technol. Soc. 2019, 58, 101138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tella, A.; Edward, I.; Akanbi-Ademolake, H.; Akande, S.O. Perception, use and effectiveness of open source library systems by academic librarians in selected tertiary institutions in Kwara State, Nigeria. J. Acad. Libr. 2021, 47, 102307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dionisio, D. Medicines Patent Pool: Making the difference on access. Future Virol. 2011, 6, 1147–1150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Innovation Attribute | Benefit Gap |
---|---|
(I) Adequate information and communication channels | (i) The communication channels and messages are designed to reach only members with specific financial or social capital |
(II) Affordability | (ii) Only some of the members can afford the innovation |
(III) Appropriateness and availability | (iii) The innovation addresses the needs of members with a high SES |
(IV) Anticipation | (iv) The innovation has (unforeseen) negative consequences that affect some of the members of society |
(V) Accountability | (v) The costs of mitigating the negative consequences are not distributed adequately amongst the beneficiaries |
(VI) Sustainable path creation | (vi) The detrimental impact is cumulative and the effects are so drastic that they outweigh benefits for innovators and users (tipping points) |
Name | Short Description and Examples | Sources (Extract) |
---|---|---|
Co-creation | User integration, user innovation, inbound innovation involving users in the ideation and prototyping process | [44,45] |
Crowdfunding | Funding of innovation and cultural projects, usually via online platforms, e.g., kickstarter | [46,47] |
Crowdsourcing | Often with online tools, idea platforms or idea contests, sourcing ideas from a defined or undefined crowd, depending on the objective and initiator | [48,49] |
Open access | Knowledge content development, also open online courses, e.g., open map project, massive open online courses (MOOCs), e.g., from Harvard University | [50,51] |
Open source | Open source usually for software development, e.g., Linux but also for hardware | [52,53] |
Open source science | Citizen science, crowd science, science commons, open contribution and sharing of knowledge around a specific topic, e.g., Foldit, Galaxy Zoo, Open Genome Project | [54,55] |
Patent pools * | Collaboration and licensing organization for technology-related intelelctual property rights, e.g., Medicines Patent Pool, Pool for Open Innovation on Neglected Diseases | Own data: 5 interviews, 46 documents: licensing contracts, press releases, policy briefings; and [56] |
PDPs | Development partnerships and public private partnerships, usually for health technologies for developing countries, e.g., DNDi (Drugs for Neglected Disease initiative) | [5,57] |
Problem-centred innovation networks | Innovation networks and larger public–private partnership for societal benefits, e.g., in development and climate mitigation technologies for strategic niche management | [21,23] |
Technology platforms | Licensing platforms for technology transfer, clearing houses, outbound innovation, e.g., Eco Patent Commons, WIPO Green | Own data: 3 interviews, 32 documents: licensing contracts, press releases brochures; and [58,59] |
Open Innovation Practice | Co-Creation | Crowd-Funding | Crowd-Sourcing | Open Access | Open Source |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Initiators | companies | social enterprises, citizens, companies | companies | citizens, NGOs, education institutes | citizens |
Participants | users | citizens | users, companies, engineers, research institutes | citizens, education inst., social enterprises, NGOs, research inst. | citizens, companies |
Inclusiveness: -contribution | medium (restricted: lead user) | high | high * | high | high * |
-use | restricted | restricted | restricted | high | high |
Sharing and reducing: -innovation risks | medium | medium | medium | high | high |
-investments | low | high | low | high | high |
Potential to change market logic | low | medium | low | high | high |
Open Innovation Practice | Open Source Science | Patent Pools | PDPs | Problem-Centered Inno. Networks | Technology Platforms |
Initiators | scientists and research institutes | NGOs, companies | NGOs | governmental organizations, NGOs | companies, international organisations |
Participants | citizens, scientists, education inst., companies | companies, research institutes | companies, research institutes | companies, NGOs, citizens (users), research inst. | companies, research institutes |
Inclusiveness: -contribution | high * | high * | high ** | medium-high ** | high * |
-use | high | high ** | high ** | medium-high ** | high |
Sharing and reducing: -innovation risks | high | high | high | high | medium |
-investments | high | high | high | high | high |
Potential to change market logic | high | medium | medium | medium, depends on topic | medium |
Type | Type 1—Inclusive Open Innovation Practices | Type 2—Societal Open Innovation Practices | Type 3—Crowd Open Innovation Practices | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Practices | open access, open source (software and hardware) | patent pools, PDPs, problem-centred innovation networks, technology platforms | co-creation, crowdfunding, crowdsourcing | |
Innovation Attribute: | ||||
(I) Adequate information and communication channels | high | high | medium-high * | |
(II) Affordability | high | high | low-medium ** | |
(III) Appropriateness and availability | high * | high | low-medium *, high * in crowdfunding | |
(IV) Anticipation | n.a., high * in crowd science | medium, high * in problem-centred innovation networks | n.a. | |
(V) Accountability | n.a. | n.a., high * in problem-centred innovation networks | n.a. | |
(VI) Sustainable path creation | high | medium, high *** in problem-centred innovation networks | low * |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Eppinger, E. How Open Innovation Practices Deliver Societal Benefits. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031431
Eppinger E. How Open Innovation Practices Deliver Societal Benefits. Sustainability. 2021; 13(3):1431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031431
Chicago/Turabian StyleEppinger, Elisabeth. 2021. "How Open Innovation Practices Deliver Societal Benefits" Sustainability 13, no. 3: 1431. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031431