Sustainability and Open Innovation: Main Themes and Research Trajectories
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper provides a literature review on sustainability and open innovation, in order to identify (1) the main themes investigated in the scientific literature and (2) the possible research which can be outlined in relation to this research topic. A quantitative bibliometric analysis and a qualitative comprehensive analysis are provided. The analysis, going from 2011 to now, identifies four different clusters of research themes and suggests two future research lines for the agri-food industry. I thank the authors for this work, which I found well done, clearly explained and instructive. Nevertheless, I have a few comments on certain aspects that seem to me insufficiently described in the article.
General comments
- You state at the very beginning of the paper that several previous reviews do exist on this topic, or closely related to the topic (Table 1). You argue that a new review is still necessary on the subject (L77-85), but you don’t discuss the findings of your work comparatively to theses reviews. I think that such a discussion should be added after the results section in order to clarify the knowledge gap that you have filled.
- The paper deals with sustainability and innovation. The different types of innovation (technological, organizational, social) and the different forms of innovation (incremental, radical) are described, especially in section 2.1. Also, open innovation is introduced in section 2.2. However, I think that sustainability is poorly described and discussed. The authors assume that sustainability is adequately described by the triple bottom line (planet, people, profit), but many papers argue that this triple bottom line approach is insufficient to address sustainability challenges. By citing UN goals (L142-143) you can state by yourself that the triple bottom line is insufficient to describe sustainability goals. If necessary, and because you refer to food industry, I can for example encourage you to consider SAFA guidelines (FAO, 2014) which add governance to sustainability pillars. Another example: Chaudhary et al. (2018) have made a global-scale analysis quantifying the status of national food system performance of 156 countries, defining 7 sustainability domains as follows: nutrition, environment, food affordability and availability, sociocultural well-being, resilience, food safety, and waste. My idea is not to provide an extensive review of what sustainability is or is not, but at least to state that sustainability is not an acknowledged static concept and to discuss the implication of this on innovation processes. I believe it is really important, especially in the case of open innovation, since a common definition of sustainability objectives can be a real challenge in itself in an open innovation approach.
- You adequately describe the 4 clusters you obtained with your bibliometric study. However, from what I see on Figure 2, these clusters are not completely separated one from each other. Also, in the text, for instance when you describe Cluster 1, you give some elements which are also linked to Cluster 4 (L273-275). Another example: when you describe Cluster 2, you could also refer to Cluster 3 (L298-L302). I think it would be worthwhile to analyze also the overlapping areas between clusters, or at least to identify them.
- I think the section related to food industry is insufficiently discussed. My main concern is that food industry covers very different situations. For example, in Europe, 99% of food industries are SMEs but represent only 40% of the European turnover (see Food Drink Europe data). In other words, 1% of food and drink industries generate more than half of the food and drink industry turnover in Europe. When you talk about open innovation in agri-food industry, can we observe the same situations for all food companies? I think that your comprehensive literature review should analyze this “size effect” with regards to open innovation.
- In the same line, you suggest as future research crowdfunding as a tool to support sustainability initiatives. Do you really think that big food companies need crowdfunding whereas they already capture most of the money generated by food and drink industries?
- Another point is that food industry is associated to a high culture of confidentiality. To what extent can this be overcome to open up the way to open innovation? This might be related to the size effect mentioned above. Perhaps the scientific literature is not intense enough on this topic to provide an answer, but at least some ideas coming from a comprehensive review analysis could be suggested.
- Most of time in the text you use ‘agri-food’ and sometimes ‘agro-food’ (Abstract, L405). Please harmonize or justify the difference. In my understanding ‘agri-food’ refers to agriculture + food industry while ‘agro-food’ refers to food industry, but perhaps it is not your meaning.
Specific comments
Table 1. The reference [5] in incompletely provided (‘eco-‘ instead of ‘eco-innovation’)
L101-102. Technological, organizational and social innovations are not necessarily independent. I think it is obvious for you, but as it is written, it is not so obvious, and I think it should be mentioned. Furthermore, some authors (e.g. Meynard et al. 2017) argue that coupled innovation would be an efficient way to go to radical innovation in agri-food systems.
L154-168. This part is comfusing for me. What is the key-message? It would be helpful to explain rather than quote certain references (e.g. L158-160) to better integrate the definitions in relation to your message.
L182. When commenting Figure 1, before introducing the database used please state and comment the research objective definitions.
L239-240. Please explain that 87 terms are the number of terms remaining after refining. As it is written, I was not sure of this (but I think it is the case according the 87 nodes you mention L246).
Figure 2. I have understood that the software made the 4 clusters with a devoted algorithm. I would be interested in knowing more about the clustering with the software, because for instance for me ‘technology’ could be in all clusters, ‘performance’ could be in cluster 2. It would be nice to clarify how and why each concept is ascribed to a specific cluster.
Figure 2. Also, some terms are very small and difficult to read on the Figure 2, would it be possible to improve this?
L248-249. I do not understand how you named each cluster. Did you only look at the terms included in each cluster? Or was it thanks to the qualitative analysis?
L336-344. This part is unclear to me. Do you mean that sustainable business model is necessarily a business model innovation, and that open innovation is a preferred way to innovate in the business model? Please clarify this part.
L356. Could you develop, or at least give an example, of the differences you are talking about?
Figure 3. I think the title of Figure 3 is not appropriate, I would suggest something like “Evolution over time of the term network”.
L394. In think you could say ‘In last decades’ instead of ‘In recent years’. Food industry is not a new industry.
L406. What do you mean by ‘very conservative in terms of innovation’?
L424. Could you provide some information on the models you are talking about? And could you develop which modifications would be needed to go towards more sustainability? Without reading your ref [51] it is difficult to understand your proposal.
References of my comments
Chaudhary, A., Gustafson, D., Mathys, A., 2018. Multi-indicator sustainability assessment of global food systems. Nat. Commun. 9, 848. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-03308-7
FAO, 2014. SAFA (Sustainability Assessment of Food and Agriculture systems) Tool: User Manual Version 2.2.40 30.
Food Drink Europe data: https://www.fooddrinkeurope.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/FoodDrinkEurope-Data-Trends-2021-digital.pdf
Meynard, J.-M., Jeuffroy, M.-H., Le Bail, M., Lefèvre, A., Magrini, M.-B., Michon, C., 2017. Designing coupled innovations for the sustainability transition of agrifood systems. Agricultural Systems 157, 330–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2016.08.002
Author Response
REVIEVER # 1
This paper provides a literature review on sustainability and open innovation, in order to identify (1) the main themes investigated in the scientific literature and (2) the possible research which can be outlined in relation to this research topic. A quantitative bibliometric analysis and a qualitative comprehensive analysis are provided. The analysis, going from 2011 to now, identifies four different clusters of research themes and suggests two future research lines for the agri-food industry. I thank the authors for this work, which I found well done, clearly explained and instructive. Nevertheless, I have a few comments on certain aspects that seem to me insufficiently described in the article.
Comment 1
You state at the very beginning of the paper that several previous reviews do exist on this topic, or closely related to the topic (Table 1). You argue that a new review is still necessary on the subject (L77-85), but you don’t discuss the findings of your work comparatively to theses reviews. I think that such a discussion should be added after the results section in order to clarify the knowledge gap that you have filled.
Answer to comment 1
A discussion paragraph has been added, in which a comparison with previous reviews was made (see section Comparison with previous literature reviews). Specifically, the results of the previously conducted reviews were commented on and a framework was proposed to integrate the previous results with those obtained from our review. In this way, it is possible to see the contribution of our work compared to previous ones.
Comment 2
The paper deals with sustainability and innovation. The different types of innovation (technological, organizational, social) and the different forms of innovation (incremental, radical) are described, especially in section 2.1. Also, open innovation is introduced in section 2.2. However, I think that sustainability is poorly described and discussed. The authors assume that sustainability is adequately described by the triple bottom line (planet, people, profit), but many papers argue that this triple bottom line approach is insufficient to address sustainability challenges. By citing UN goals (L142-143) you can state by yourself that the triple bottom line is insufficient to describe sustainability goals. If necessary, and because you refer to food industry, I can for example encourage you to consider SAFA guidelines (FAO, 2014) which add governance to sustainability pillars. Another example: Chaudhary et al. (2018) have made a global-scale analysis quantifying the status of national food system performance of 156 countries, defining 7 sustainability domains as follows: nutrition, environment, food affordability and availability, sociocultural well-being, resilience, food safety, and waste. My idea is not to provide an extensive review of what sustainability is or is not, but at least to state that sustainability is not an acknowledged static concept and to discuss the implication of this on innovation processes. I believe it is really important, especially in the case of open innovation, since a common definition of sustainability objectives can be a real challenge in itself in an open innovation approach.
Answer to comment 2
I thank the reviewer for the interesting insight proposed, however the review presented is intended to be of a general nature, not focused on a specific sector. The focus on the agri-food one has been made because the bibliometric analysis showed that the words agri-food industry and agri-food sector appeared in the years 2021 and 2022, respectively, in association with sustainable open innovation, highlighting a growing interest on the part of the scientific community. For this reason, no reference was made to the agri-food industry in the introductory sections. In any case, the proposed references were strongly taken into account and contributed to the discussion of the section 'Open sustainable innovation in the agri-food industry'.
Comment 3
You adequately describe the 4 clusters you obtained with your bibliometric study. However, from what I see on Figure 2, these clusters are not completely separated one from each other. Also, in the text, for instance when you describe Cluster 1, you give some elements which are also linked to Cluster 4 (L273-275). Another example: when you describe Cluster 2, you could also refer to Cluster 3 (L298-L302). I think it would be worthwhile to analyze also the overlapping areas between clusters, or at least to identify them.
Answer to comment 3
The overlapping between clusters has been discussed in paragraph 5.
Comment 4
I think the section related to food industry is insufficiently discussed. My main concern is that food industry covers very different situations. For example, in Europe, 99% of food industries are SMEs but represent only 40% of the European turnover (see Food Drink Europe data). In other words, 1% of food and drink industries generate more than half of the food and drink industry turnover in Europe. When you talk about open innovation in agri-food industry, can we observe the same situations for all food companies? I think that your comprehensive literature review should analyze this ” with regards to open innovation.
Answer to comment 4
In Section 2.1 Open Innovation, a part concerning the effect of company size on open innovation activities was added. Consequently, a study of the possible impact between company size and open innovation activities in the food sector, aimed at understanding whether the sector scenario differs from the general trend, was added as a possible future research. Indeed, it was noted that there are no specific contributions in the literature that examine this variable in the agri-food sector.
Comment 5
In the same line, you suggest as future research crowdfunding as a tool to support sustainability initiatives. Do you really think that big food companies need crowdfunding whereas they already capture most of the money generated by food and drink industries?
Answer to comment 5
Comment 6
Another point is that food industry is associated to a high culture of confidentiality. To what extent can this be overcome to open up the way to open innovation? This might be related to the size effect mentioned above. Perhaps the scientific literature is not intense enough on this topic to provide an answer, but at least some ideas coming from a comprehensive review analysis could be suggested.
Answer to comment 6
The suggestion has been taken into account and it has been added as a future research avenue in section 4.2.1.
Comment 7
Most of time in the text you use ‘agri-food’ and sometimes ‘agro-food’ (Abstract, L405). Please harmonize or justify the difference. In my understanding ‘agri-food’ refers to agriculture + food industry while ‘agro-food’ refers to food industry, but perhaps it is not your meaning.
Answer to comment 7
We corrected the error and adopted the terminology agri-food industry throughout the paper.
Comment 8
Table 1. The reference [5] in incompletely provided (‘eco-‘ instead of ‘eco-innovation’)
Answer to comment 8
Table 1 was moved to the discussion section and renamed as Table 6. The error has been corrected.
Comment 9
L101-102. Technological, organizational and social innovations are not necessarily independent. I think it is obvious for you, but as it is written, it is not so obvious, and I think it should be mentioned. Furthermore, some authors (e.g. Meynard et al. 2017) argue that coupled innovation would be an efficient way to go to radical innovation in agri-food systems.
Answer to comment 9
To write this part, we followed the following reference which distinguishes the three mentioned forms of sustainable innovation without considering a possible combination of them.
Bigliardi, B.; Filippelli, S.; Galati, F. Sustainable Innovation: Drivers, Barriers, and Actors under an Open Innovation Lens. In Sustainable Innovation; Routledge, 2021; pp. 109–122 ISBN 0-429-29950-8.
Comment 10
L154-168. This part is comfusing for me. What is the key-message? It would be helpful to explain rather than quote certain references (e.g. L158-160) to better integrate the definitions in relation to your message.
Answer to comment 10
Comment 11
L182. When commenting Figure 1, before introducing the database used please state and comment the research objective definitions.
Answer to comment 11
Research objectives have been added where indicated.
Comment 12
L239-240. Please explain that 87 terms are the number of terms remaining after refining. As it is written, I was not sure of this (but I think it is the case according the 87 nodes you mention L246).
Answer to comment 12
At the end of paragraph 3.1 it is stated that 93 is the number of contributions left after refinement, i.e. the application of inclusion criteria.
Comment 13
Figure 2. I have understood that the software made the 4 clusters with a devoted algorithm. I would be interested in knowing more about the clustering with the software, because for instance for me ‘technology’ could be in all clusters, ‘performance’ could be in cluster 2. It would be nice to clarify how and why each concept is ascribed to a specific cluster.
Answer to comment 13
Explaining the process by which the VOSviewer software clusters items would imply devoting a section of the methodology to the in-depth study of map construction. Specifically, the process of map construction is governed by complex mapping techniques, the explanation of which would require a rather lengthy dissertation. Following the approach taken by other bibliometric reviews (e.g. Liao, H., Tang, M., Luo, L., Li, C., Chiclana, F., & Zeng, X. J. (2018). A bibliometric analysis and visualization of medical big data research. Sustainability, 10(1), 166.), we preferred not to delve into the technicalities of the software.
Comment 14
Figure 2. Also, some terms are very small and difficult to read on the Figure 2, would it be possible to improve this?
Answer to comment 14
The figure has been enlarged.
Comment 15
L248-249. I do not understand how you named each cluster. Did you only look at the terms included in each cluster? Or was it thanks to the qualitative analysis?
Answer to comment 15
How we have named each cluster has been explained in paragraph 4.1.
Comment 16
L336-344. This part is unclear to me. Do you mean that sustainable business model is necessarily a business model innovation, and that open innovation is a preferred way to innovate in the business model? Please clarify this part.
Answer to comment 16
L356. Could you develop, or at least give an example, of the differences you are talking about?
Answer to comment 17
Comment 18
Figure 3. I think the title of Figure 3 is not appropriate, I would suggest something like “Evolution over time of the term network”.
Answer to comment 18
Comment 19
L394. In think you could say ‘In last decades’ instead of ‘In recent years’. Food industry is not a new industry.
Answer to comment 19
Comment 20
L406. What do you mean by ‘very conservative in terms of innovation’?
Answer to comment 20
The expression has been clarified by adding the following sentences: “In fact, the agro-food industry is considered a relatively mature one, characterized by low levels of investment in R&D and very conservative in terms of the type of innovations to be proposed to the market. This means that the introduction of radically new products to the market is rare, while it is more common to find incremental innovations on proposed products. This approach to innovation keeps R&D costs low, involves little technological risk, and encourages a large number of different products to be brought to market in a relatively short time. The result is the launch of only "slightly new" products, of which the final consumer has difficulty perceiving the added value.”
Comment 21
L424. Could you provide some information on the models you are talking about? And could you develop which modifications would be needed to go towards more sustainability? Without reading your ref [51] it is difficult to understand your proposal.
Answer to comment 21
The Sharing is Winning model was presented, proposing a possible future line of research from this.
Reviewer 2 Report
- Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. It is an interesting paper. While I commend the authors for taking up this research work, I have suggestions that can enhance the quality of this work. The authors may consider these suggestions to improve the paper and accordingly conduct a revision. If needed, the paper may be sent back to me after the authors revise. I wish the authors all the best with the revision.
- The introduction section needs improvement. It should clearly and convincingly highlight the problem statement/research gap. It should highlight why presenting the analysis the paper does is important for the research or practitioner communities. It should also highlight the paper’s contribution. I also find it inappropriate to have a table in the introduction.
- The authors have covered much of the literature. However, some recent relevant studies have been overlooked. In particular, I recommend the authors look at the works of Naqashbandi and Jasumudin on open innovation in the contexts of Malaysia, France and India. They have published quite a significant number of related works that can strengthen this paper, particularly the theoretical development and discussion.
- The authors may further provide a richer discussion of the themes described. The authors could use the extant literature to discuss in detail the themes such as “Sustainable open innovation and innovation performance”, “The role of technological capability for sustainable open innovation” and the “business model perspective”. There is rich literature available on these themes.
- I see potential in this paper. The authors need to revise it based on the feedback above. All the best.
Author Response
REVIEWER #2
Comment 1
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. It is an interesting paper. While I commend the authors for taking up this research work, I have suggestions that can enhance the quality of this work. The authors may consider these suggestions to improve the paper and accordingly conduct a revision. If needed, the paper may be sent back to me after the authors revise. I wish the authors all the best with the revision. The introduction section needs improvement. It should clearly and convincingly highlight the problem statement/research gap. It should highlight why presenting the analysis the paper does is important for the research or practitioner communities. It should also highlight the paper’s contribution. I also find it inappropriate to have a table in the introduction.
Answer to comment 1
The introductory section has been modified as follows:
- Clearer definition of the objective of the study and the research gap to be filled
- Elimination of the table. Contributions from previous reviews have been summarised and discussed in the Discussion section, purposely added.
Comment 2
The authors have covered much of the literature. However, some recent relevant studies have been overlooked. In particular, I recommend the authors look at the works of Naqashbandi and Jasumudin on open innovation in the contexts of Malaysia, France and India. They have published quite a significant number of related works that can strengthen this paper, particularly the theoretical development and discussion.
Answer to comment 2
Comment 3
The authors may further provide a richer discussion of the themes described. The authors could use the extant literature to discuss in detail the themes such as “Sustainable open innovation and innovation performance”, “The role of technological capability for sustainable open innovation” and the “business model perspective”. There is rich literature available on these themes. I see potential in this paper. The authors need to revise it based on the feedback above. All the best.
Answer to comment 3
A deeper discussion of the themes has been added.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors, thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your work. The paper focuses on an important topic on sustainable open innovation and in my point of view is an interesting research. However, many things in the paper should be restructured. I explain the main concerns I have with the paper.
The first paragraph is too long and confusing. Please break it up into smaller paragraphs.
The arguments outlining the research problem in the introduction are not well justified. Please develop these elements further. Why do we need a theoretical study in innovation for sustainability? What is new about your proposal? Please provide more arguments.
The research questions are not well formulated. They are generic, for example What are the main themes investigated? (in relation to what?) Furthermore, the introduction section does not present the research objectives. Please also present the purpose of your study.
Why did you specifically focus on open innovation for sustainability? Why not other approaches and concepts in innovation, such as innovation ecosystems, creative process, triple helix, cross-functional teams, agile management, .... This choice for the concept of open innovation needs to be much better justified in your article.
I think an interesting result of your article could be to show the main journals that publish on this topic, and the management theories that are addressed in these found articles.
How did you develop topics 4.1.1 to 4.1.4? Was it based on the articles identified? Please explain? Was there an interpretation by you to develop these topics? This needs to be explained much better.
If in table 3 the most recent term found is ‘green innovation behavior’, why is topic 4.2.1 about open sustainable innovation in the agri-food industry? Please review it.
The paper does not present a discussion section that compares the results obtained with the 'state of the art' on the subject, which makes it difficult to evaluate the paper successfully.
In my point of view, the conclusions are too superficial. No conclusive points of the study are presented, and neither the theoretical and managerial implications of the paper. In other words, I think that besides the need to open a new "Discussions" topic, it is essential to significantly improve the conclusions section.
Author Response
REVIEWER #3
Comment 1
Dear authors, thank you for giving me the opportunity to review your work. The paper focuses on an important topic on sustainable open innovation and in my point of view is an interesting research. However, many things in the paper should be restructured. I explain the main concerns I have with the paper.
The first paragraph is too long and confusing. Please break it up into smaller paragraphs.
Answer to comment 1
The first paragraph has been shortened by moving the table on previous literature reviews and the related commentary to paragraph 5.
Comment 2
The arguments outlining the research problem in the introduction are not well justified. Please develop these elements further. Why do we need a theoretical study in innovation for sustainability? What is new about your proposal? Please provide more arguments.
Answer to comment 2
Research problem is better outlined and justified in paragraph 1.
Comment 3
The research questions are not well formulated. They are generic, for example What are the main themes investigated? (in relation to what?) Furthermore, the introduction section does not present the research objectives. Please also present the purpose of your study.
Answer to comment 3
The research questions were removed and replaced by a clearer explanation of the objectives, including questions to be answered, but not formalised in the form of research questions.
Comment 4
Why did you specifically focus on open innovation for sustainability? Why not other approaches and concepts in innovation, such as innovation ecosystems, creative process, triple helix, cross-functional teams, agile management, .... This choice for the concept of open innovation needs to be much better justified in your article.
Answer to comment 4
We decided to use the term open innovation only in order to delimit the results of the research and lower the risk of including contributions with little relevance to the topic under study. In any case, we welcomed the suggestion and included this issue in the search limitations, pointing out that adding the proposed keywords to the query could represent a promising line of research.
Comment 5
I think an interesting result of your article could be to show the main journals that publish on this topic, and the management theories that are addressed in these found articles.
Answer to comment 5
In the Results section a paragraph discussing descriptive statistics of the sample has been added. In this new section the main journals, the most active authors and countries, the publication trend overtime and the main managerial and organizational theories have been shown.
Comment 6
How did you develop topics 4.1.1 to 4.1.4? Was it based on the articles identified? Please explain? Was there an interpretation by you to develop these topics? This needs to be explained much better.
Answer to comment 6
How topics have been selected and clusters named has been clarified in paragraph 4.1.
Comment 7
If in table 3 the most recent term found is ‘green innovation behavior’, why is topic 4.2.1 about open sustainable innovation in the agri-food industry? Please review it.
Answer to comment 7
I suspect that the results presented in Table 3 have been misunderstood. In fact, the term agri-food sector is the most recent (average year of appearance 2022), which is why the discussion of future research avenues is focused on this specific sector.
Comment 8 and 9
The paper does not present a discussion section that compares the results obtained with the 'state of the art' on the subject, which makes it difficult to evaluate the paper successfully.
Answer to comment 8 and 9
A discussion paragraph has been added, in which a comparison with previous reviews was made (see section Comparison with previous literature reviews). Specifically, the results of the previously conducted reviews were commented on and a framework was proposed to integrate the previous results with those obtained from our review. In this way, it is possible to see the contribution of our work compared to previous ones.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Most of the comments have been addressed.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have improved the article after this review.
