Including Sustainability Criteria in the Front End of Innovation in Technology Ventures

Abstract

This study evaluates the presence of sustainability parameters in the product development process, especially in the early stages of innovation, using the Sustainability Technology Readiness Level (STRL) tool. STRL assesses the initial planning of products or product and service systems (PSS) and suggests possibilities for incorporating sustainable features in the short, medium, and long term based on responses from startups (EBTs). The research was conducted in two ecosystems at different maturity levels: Florianópolis (Brazil), a more mature stage, and Santander (Colombia), which is growing, considering their cultural and social differences. To validate the STRL tool, four out of the eighteen winning startups from the MuEBTe SANTANDER public funding project in Colombia were selected. Characteristics of the two researched ecosystems, their actors, strengths, approaches, and expansion possibilities were identified and compared. The innovation lies in establishing a sustainable baseline when applying the tool by acquiring the front-end characteristic matrix. It was observed that sustainability as a variable has relevance and independence from product design in product planning, allowing for the selection of short, medium, and long-term actions throughout the product’s lifecycle. It was concluded that considering sustainability involves context and vision, resulting in significant choices of materials, processes, and production methods that add value and appreciation for the customer.

1. Introduction

Regulations, targets, and guidelines have emphasized the global awareness of the planet’s finite resources, from the Stockholm Conference in 1972 [1] to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In this context, humanity must make accelerated efforts to minimize impacts, which require a shift in production and consumption systems to promote sustainability (SDG 12—Responsible Consumption and Production) [2,3].

A systemic view of the product lifecycle is crucial, given the severe impacts of unsustainable products and processes on nature and society [4]. In this regard, the Product Development Process (PDP) is often used to identify stages that add the most value to the product and to understand consumer needs and desires. According to Rozenfeld et al. [5] and Pigosso et al. [6], the PDP is a strategic activity closely linked to consumer demands, identifying their desires and responding with innovative and well-designed products. Reid and De Brentani [7] divided the innovation process into stages, including the Fuzzy Front End (FFE) or Front End of Innovation (FEI), which is the initial and critical phase of the process, and new product development (NPD), where the idea is structured, including the marketing process [8,9].

The fuzzy front end gained prominence with the work of Koen et al. [10], also known as the front end of innovation (FEI), representing the phase that occurs before development and concept, which the authors consider crucial for innovation success. In developing new products, the FEI is an opportunity to improve the innovation process, as ideas are introduced and shaped flexibly to incorporate attributes, including those related to sustainability [11,12].

In this scenario, innovation, especially disruptive innovation, plays a fundamental role in developing solutions. Disruptive or radical innovation involves products, processes, or services with unprecedented performance, drastic resource changes, or costs, opening new application areas [13,14,15]. Disruptive solutions depend on collaboration among startups, companies, organizations, universities, and government agencies, forming innovation ecosystems that evolve through interaction among actors with varying levels of commitment.

The main difference between innovation in established companies and startups is the focus on the customer, involving them in the validation process, and considering their suggestions and opinions in product structuring. Startups have a rapid cycle of strategy and innovation, starting with a minimum viable product (MVP) that allows for collecting customer-validated information [16,17]. The construction of the MVP depends on the context and complexity of the idea, addressing ethical, legal, social, and market-related issues.

Startups play a crucial role in innovation ecosystems, creating scalable, recurring, and profitable product or product–service system (PSS) solutions under conditions of uncertainty. In recent years, startups have transformed the business world, accelerated innovation, and strengthened the innovation ecosystem through collaboration and interactions among companies, universities, and other actors. There are various types of startups, with technology-based startups (EBTs) standing out for using new technologies, specialized teams, and development from scratch with customer involvement [18]. EBTs have a solid academic and research influence, often emerging as academic or corporate spin-offs or through interaction between entrepreneurs and actors in the innovation ecosystem [19].

This study aims to incorporate sustainability from the outset in developing disruptive products, recognizing it as a growth factor and an opportunity for value creation. The research was conducted in two ecosystems with different maturity levels, aiming to identify maturity stages and develop strategies to increase visibility in the national startup market. It represents applied research of an exploratory nature, with a qualitative approach, whose evidence was obtained through the triangulation of multiple sources, such as systematic document analysis, interviews, and participant and non-participant observation. The main objective was to analyze and interpret study variables that could not be identified and analyzed solely through statistical tools. The methodology was developed in five distinct phases. Firstly, the research structure was defined. Next, relevant criteria for consolidating the theoretical tool to be tested in the field were selected. In the third phase, research instruments to be used in interviews with participants were defined, including startups, accelerators, incubators, mentors, and representatives from academia and government. The fourth research phase involved analyzing the results through qualitative analysis and data triangulation. As a result of this process, the STRL tool for incorporating sustainability through technology-based startups (EBTs) wishing to consolidate the development of their products or services with sustainable characteristics was developed. Finally, the fifth phase consisted of validating the STRL tool in the innovation and entrepreneurship ecosystem of the Santander region in Colombia.

In conclusion, this study seeks to promote the integration of sustainability considerations from the outset in developing disruptive products in startups that initially do not have an environmental or social focus. This article’s contribution to the literature lies in the proposed approach that offers a short, medium, and long-term perspective for PSS, integrating environmental and social aspects. The STRL tool assesses the initial planning of the product or PSS, providing guidelines for sustainable development over time. This study contributes to understanding disruptive innovation mechanisms focusing on sustainability and offers a practical approach for its implementation.

The article is structured as follows: in the next section, we will present the theoretical framework, addressing sustainability, the front end of innovation (FEI), innovation in startups, and their interaction with innovation ecosystems. Then, we will describe the methodology in five consecutive phases. In the third section, we will present the results. In the fourth section, we will discuss the contributions and implications of the research. Finally, in the fifth section, we will discuss possible future research directions.

2. Theoretical Background

Sustainability has gained prominence in recent decades, driven by increased social awareness and frequent adverse climate events that have spurred the search for solutions in global consumption and production [20]. To address this issue, it is essential to adopt a comprehensive view of the product lifecycle, considering the adverse consequences of unsustainable products and processes for nature and humanity [5]. The scientific literature has addressed this theme via describing practices, methodologies, indicators, and tools aimed at assessing processes to minimize the environmental impact resulting from industrial development in later stages of product development [21,22,23,24].

2.1. Sustainable Development and Innovation

An innovative approach highlighted in the literature [25] focuses on the concept of “performance-based selling” as opposed to “product-based selling,” shifting the focus toward functionality and benefits through the integration of goods and services. Researchers have explored the integration of sustainability throughout the production process, from inception to the final phase, seeking to integrate sustainability into the design and manufacturing processes. Various approaches have been proposed, such as Elkington’s systemic view of the triple bottom line [21,26], Manzini and Vezzoli’s Design for Sustainability (DFS) [27], McDonough and Braungart’s cradle-to-cradle process analysis [28], among others.

Cluzel et al. [29] addressed eco-ideation and eco-portfolio selection for R&D projects in complex systems industries based on the eco-design strategy wheel, considering environmental dimensions. Jugend et al. [30] presented eco-design as a practice to reduce environmental impacts in the early stages of NPD, proposing approaches that include the integration of eco-design into the decision-making process and the NPD product portfolio. Villamil and Hallstedt [31] and Villamil et al. [32] explored sustainability aspects in the company’s product portfolio, emphasizing the importance of temporal horizons in identifying opportunities and mitigating risks in sustainable development.

These studies suggest that companies must add value to their products via addressing social and environmental issues to minimize social impact. Fiksel [33] proposes measuring the impact on shareholder value and executive autonomy to solve the problem, classifying environmental issues based on their impact and scope. Hart [34] and Hart and Milstein [35] emphasize the need for each company to develop its sustainability vision as a roadmap for the future, outlining pathways for product and service evolution and the new competencies required. In addition to these research efforts, other works aim to provide sustainability parameters and indicators with various criteria.

Table 1. Characteristics of some approaches found in the literature.

Methodology	Characteristics	Limitations	Research Works
Bellagio Principles	Establishes initial analysis parameters for defining sustainability indicators, comprehensive institutional sustainability vision.	Presents principles and guidelines in a cross-sectional manner without delving into their implementation.	[36]
Daly and Meadows Model	Sets parameters for measuring the sustainability tripod in a hierarchical and pyramidal manner, relating all sectors and interactions of society with nature.	The model provides an interpretation of the structure of life and its hierarchies in the pursuit of sustainability, but does not provide implementation means.	Fundamentals [37] Extensions [38]
Pressure-State-Impact-Response Model	Consists of four fundamental aspects: (A) problem identification, (B) quantification, (C) individual impact detailing, (D) response.	Individualizing pressures do not consider the global aspect or direct and indirect influences on the system.	OECD [39]
Sustainability Prism	It is based on the principle of sustainability through four dimensions: social, economic, environmental, and institutional. It includes the voice of the community.	Although objectives are broken down into indicators, the article does not describe or indicate the path to follow.	[40]
Indicator 95/99	Establishes actions through a product-oriented environmental management system, using an understanding of eco-indicators.	Covers raw materials, processes, and transportation.	[41]
Ethos indicators for Sustainable and Responsible Businesses	Diagnostic self-assessment to contribute to responsible business management. It includes dimensions that address vision and strategy, social aspects, governance and management, and environmental criteria.	Does not address or encourage companies in terms of effective improvement practices and actions.	[42]
Global Reporting Initiative (GRI)	Guides organizations in understanding and disclosing their contributions to achieving sustainable development. It consists of dimensions subdivided into categories that assess human rights, labor practices, community, and society.	The information disclosed by the company focuses on criteria in which the company has performed well and disregards aspects and criteria the company does not consider important for disclosure.	GRI [43]
Indicators of Design, Sustainability, and Social Responsibility	Presents a model of indicators to evaluate environmental and social criteria, facilitating appropriate decision-making from the design phase.	The model presents indicator results but does not indicate how to improve these results.	[44]
Sustainable Value Mapping	Modeling sustainable business to consider the value lost or destroyed for its key stakeholders.	The model consists of stages: the purpose of the business and the value it captures for its stakeholders, the value destroyed, and where resources or capabilities are being wasted. The model considers new opportunities for creating shared value.	[45]
SGD-Check	The model uses an online tool called “SDG-Check” that assesses sustainability in the front end of innovation (FEI), considering the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).	The model consists of four stages to structure the innovation process but it does not consider possible paths to translate it into concrete activities.	[46]

addresses the characteristics and limitations of these methodologies.

2.2. Front End of Innovation (FEI)

During the product development process (PDP), activities that add value to the product and determine consumer needs and desires are often identified. The PDP is an important activity linked to consumer needs, identifying desires, and responding with innovative and well-designed products [5,6] The three-stage innovation process, which includes the fuzzy front end (FFE) or front end of innovation (FEI) [47], is considered a crucial phase of the innovation process, followed by detailed design and prototyping, and the final marketing phase [8,9].

The fuzzy front end involves activities such as opportunity identification, idea generation, and analysis, in which ideas are transformed into solutions that meet customer needs, considering the company’s capabilities. This issue has recently been validated by researchers who surveyed FEI in 355 articles, consolidating more than 30 years of the literature on FEI themes and research topics and identifying three main domains: innovation management, new product development, and idea management [48].

Table 2. Research works on front end of innovation (FEI) analysis models (adapted from [47,50,51,52]).

Research Works	Model	Characteristics	Activities
Cooper [53]	Up Front Model in NPD—linear process flow	Highlights the front end as the activity preceding NPD. The model consists of three preliminary stages before the development stage.	Stage I: market activities: multidisciplinary creative sessions.
			Stage II: preliminary evaluation: technological and market aspects (ideas) are assessed.
			Stage III: product concept.
Khurana and Rosenthal [54]	Front end Model in NPD—linear process flow	The model connects different approaches to NPD: rational planning, stakeholder integration, and problem-solving. It focuses on organizational aspects.	Pre-phase zero: This phase involves identifying opportunities and analyzing the market and technology. Inputs to this phase include product strategy and portfolio, inherent product development parameters, incentives, norms, and structure.
			Phase zero: defining the product concept.
			Phase one: evaluating the feasibility of activities, establishing a product definition, and project planning.
Koen et al. [10]	New Concept Development (NCD)—Theoretical and circular model—interactive flow	Proposes non-linear interaction of ideas and emphasizes the need for connection between actors and FEI execution activities.	Center: executive level where FEI activities take place.
			Fundamental radial elements for FEI: opportunity identification, opportunity analysis, idea genesis, idea selection, concept, and technological development.
			Outer ring: highlights influencing factors such as organizational capability, business strategy, and other stakeholders.
Zhang and Doll [55]	Causal Model of FEI—Conceptual model	The model addresses how uncertainties and their management causally influence company decisions, affecting project team practices. Uncertainties related to radical innovations were addressed by [48].	Stage 1: identifying customer uncertainties: portfolio, life cycle, and volume. Technological uncertainties: supply, specification, and materials. Competition: technology adoption. This stage considers foundational elements: concurrent engineering, customer and stakeholder involvement, and strategic orientation.
			Stage 2: team’s business view and action plan are defined based on strategy, priorities, and project goals.
			Stage 3: detailed design and prototyping success depends on process, product, and financial outcomes.
Boeddrich [56]	Linear model flow	The author compared FEIs of European companies and proposed differentiation between general and specific company requirements.	Develops a model of idea types defining four different employee types within an organizational context and how they solve problems. Presents a set of requirements for idea management and the use of software for its management.
Reid and De Brentani [7]	Conceptual Model	It describes a process that runs counter to traditional models for addressing radical or discontinuous innovations, in which the probability of involvement and information sharing starts at the individual level and progresses to the entire organizational pyramid.	Interface 1: boundary or frontier: individuals at this interface bring external information to the organization, identifying environmental patterns and opportunities. The output of passing through this interface is frontier keys or opportunity identification.
			Interface 2: gatekeeping: evaluating external information and how it will be shared.
			Design: decisions occur at the organizational level.
Crawford and Benedetto [57]	Linear flow model. Theoretical model	The model addresses the ability to reduce technological and market uncertainties in planning	Strategy: speed to market. Idea generation Project management
Whitney [58]	Interactive flow model. Theoretical model	The model describes the importance of feedback as a strategy for analyzing and controlling the process. It emphasizes the mechanisms, techniques, and tools used to operationalize the process.	Input interface: factors that stimulate the process, customer needs, business goals, or insights.
			System interface: comprises five elements: identification and selection of opportunities, idea generation and selection, research and development, concept synthesis, and analysis and control.
			Output interface: concept synthesis ready for development
Verworn et al. [59]	The conceptual model tested 497 NPD projects in Japanese companies	The model focuses on reducing technical and market uncertainties through planning.	They describe that the initial planning before development and analysis of technical and market uncertainties to reduce them positively impacted NPD. It is highlighted that, in the case of disruptive or radical innovations, there is greater difficulty in estimating market size and price sensitivity.
Rozenfeld et al. [5]	GDP Product Development Management Reference Model. Linear flow	The model establishes three points in the process: pre-development, development, and post-development.	Strategic product planning (SPP): outputs include product portfolio and design draft.
			Process planning (PP).
Brem and Voigt [60]	Interactive flow. Empirical model	The model includes elements such as an idea bank. It emphasizes the integration of the market and technologies.	Idea creation: after the initial review, ideas are classified and may be rejected or postponed. Ideas that remain undergo a process of classification, improvement, and preparation for implementation.
Kurkkio et al. [61]	Interactive flow. Empirical model	Front end of innovation approach, conducting a multiple case study focusing on developing new processes.	It differs in activities related to product development and process development. Proposes process development as a trial-and-error process. Activities include idea generation and refinement, literature reviews, and experiments.

presents research works and their proposals for FEI analysis models related to product creation. It should be noted that each model has complexities and considerations that require further study [47]. Management considerations are necessary and cannot be disconnected from product design. According to Nonaka and Takeuchi [49], individuals generate new ideas in the FEI stage while teams develop and implement the proposed innovations.

Based on the review of innovation models in companies, specifically in the front end of innovation (FEI), a predominance of theoretical models was observed. Regarding product development in startups, it can be noticed that it is closely tied to the development of the startup itself, as once the customer validates the idea, both the startup and the product advance to the next phase.

Understanding the market is a crucial element in product development. The market is well-defined in established companies due to its extended history and stability. On the other hand, the market segment for startups needs to be sought and validated based on customer interest in acquiring the product and considering the need for product scalability. According to the authors [62,63], startups are organizations designed to create a scalable, recurring, profitable product or PSS under extreme uncertainty. Disruptive innovation occurs to a greater extent in startups, as during the ideation and generation phases, pre-defined approaches set by the organization do not constrain startups. This phase allows for the proposal of new ideas and provides the freedom to seek development partners for idea consolidation [64]. Table 3 describes the different characteristics of the innovation process in companies and startups.

In this context, disruptive innovation, also known as radical innovation, refers to a product, process, or service that offers unprecedented performance features (easier to use), drastic changes in features (simpler), or cost reductions (more affordable and accessible), enabling new areas of application.

Disruptive innovation has gained momentum and continues to be a subject of academic discussion from various perspectives. Works such as [65,66,67,68,69,70,71] mention intrinsic aspects of the innovation–startup relationship and their development. Walsh and Kirchhoff [72] stated that the interest in disruptive innovation is mainly due to its ability to attract and satisfy low-income customers in new or final markets, offering performance attributes such as price, simplicity, and convenience that gradually gain value and eventually replace established operators in traditional markets.

Disruptive innovation can play a crucial role in the development of PSS, especially in the initial phases of the front end of innovation, where crucial decisions are made to contribute to the development and refinement of PSS. Radical innovations transform markets or create new ones [56,73]. Disruptive solutions require integrating and coordinating knowledge from various sources, including startups, companies, business organizations, universities, and government agencies, which operate in a network to leverage the new product or PSS. This coordination is known as innovation ecosystems, which evolve through interactions among actors who have different levels of commitment to the business.

Table 3. Different characteristics regarding the innovation process in companies and startups.

Characteristic	Company View	Startups
Organization	Known and validated business models with organizational and technological capacity.	Operate in a research mode in search of a repeatable and scalable business model [17,74]
Activities	Opportunity identification, analysis, idea generation process, product concept creation, market potential and risk analysis, and customer needs analysis.	Opportunity identification or discovery, learning, validation, efficiency and scale-seeking, implementation, and profit maximization.
Risk Type	Economic, political, environmental, social, technological, ethical, strategic operational, financial risks [75].	Technical, market, user, and additional risks.
Risk Management	Quantified and managed with known tools and approaches associated with known outcomes [76,77].	Different or adapted roadmap, skills, and proactive management tools [78].
Uncertainties	Client uncertainties portfolio, life cycle, technological, organizational, and market uncertainties.	Client, product, process, and market uncertainties.
Analyses	Market size estimation, segmentation, and competitive analysis	Client discovery, customer validation, and demand creation.
Technical Requirements	Design requirements based on technical and economic feasibility, product specifications, preliminary technological evaluation of the product, and planning for technical contingencies.	Consolidation of requirements through MVP and modified tools [13,14].
Customers Established	Customers who trust the brand and product development	Market search (research), customer acquisition for product testing, and feedback (execution) [17].

Table 3. Different characteristics regarding the innovation process in companies and startups.

Characteristic	Company View	Startups
Organization	Known and validated business models with organizational and technological capacity.	Operate in a research mode in search of a repeatable and scalable business model [17,74]
Activities	Opportunity identification, analysis, idea generation process, product concept creation, market potential and risk analysis, and customer needs analysis.	Opportunity identification or discovery, learning, validation, efficiency and scale-seeking, implementation, and profit maximization.
Risk Type	Economic, political, environmental, social, technological, ethical, strategic operational, financial risks [75].	Technical, market, user, and additional risks.
Risk Management	Quantified and managed with known tools and approaches associated with known outcomes [76,77].	Different or adapted roadmap, skills, and proactive management tools [78].
Uncertainties	Client uncertainties portfolio, life cycle, technological, organizational, and market uncertainties.	Client, product, process, and market uncertainties.
Analyses	Market size estimation, segmentation, and competitive analysis	Client discovery, customer validation, and demand creation.
Technical Requirements	Design requirements based on technical and economic feasibility, product specifications, preliminary technological evaluation of the product, and planning for technical contingencies.	Consolidation of requirements through MVP and modified tools [13,14].
Customers Established	Customers who trust the brand and product development	Market search (research), customer acquisition for product testing, and feedback (execution) [17].

Some studies have addressed how the generation of technological knowledge through innovative processes expands the body of information and how this cycle feeds back into the process in general [49]. By promoting the creation of startups and new networked businesses, the generation of value is encouraged, contributing to advances in patent acquisition and intellectual property, which, in turn, drive the emergence of innovations [79].

In this context, innovations originating from startups have stood out as one of the most dynamic alternatives capable of driving innovation and productivity in companies. This occurs partly due to national programs connecting startups and industries, which have played a strategic role. These programs promote the connection and interaction between startups, companies, and partners, fostering dynamism within the ecosystem. They provide infrastructure resources, financial support, economic incentives, and integration support. Companies and startups adapt and interact in neutral spaces and creative environments that favor collaboration and integration, often found in technology parks.

A methodology developed by Kon et al. [80] assesses the overall state of a technology startup ecosystem. This methodology describes four maturity levels for evaluating an ecosystem and has been applied in three cities around the world: Tel Aviv [80], São Paulo [81], and New York [82]. Furthermore, the methodology was replicated in Brasília by Castro [83].

In innovation ecosystems, various actors play crucial roles. This includes companies, startups, entrepreneurs, investors, incubators, accelerators, suppliers, support and funding entities, government and regulatory bodies, universities, local communities, customers, and end-users. All collaborate in a network to strengthen and enhance innovation, and the authors of [84,85,86] also emphasize this collaborative network. Some works describe how the creation of technological knowledge through innovation processes expands knowledge, and the acquired information feeds back into the overall process [49]. Value generation is encouraged via promoting the creation of startups and new networked businesses, contributing to advances in patent acquisition and intellectual property, and increasing the number of innovations [79].

They observed that these ecosystems constantly evolve, with three primary levels: macro, centered on a region; meso, focused on a specific sector or technology; and micro, typically represented by technology parks. At all these ecosystem levels, “leaders” are entrepreneurs engaged in consolidating the community and promoting an entrepreneurial culture. There are also “feeders” who benefit from the growth and consolidation of the ecosystem, including universities, governments, investors, mentors, and companies. Additionally, “instigators” are members of feeder organizations who act independently and can play a significant role in driving the ecosystem forward [85].

Feld [85] defined four rules for achieving a healthy ecosystem:

(a)

Entrepreneurs must lead it.

(b)

The leaders must have a long-term commitment to the development of the ecosystem.

(c)

The ecosystem must be inclusive, allowing new individuals to join and participate.

(d)

The ecosystem needs continuous activities to encourage the local entrepreneurial community.

When key actors collaborate within a network, the growth of the network benefits everyone. Factors such as sharing resources, such as legal, accounting, and administrative services in one location, can generate economies of scale that benefit the ecosystem [87].

Table 4. Methodologies for the evaluation of innovation ecosystems.

Research Works	Assessed Factors
Endeavor [88]	Regulatory environment, entrepreneurial culture, market, access to capital, innovation, human capital, and infrastructure
Castro [83]	Determinants: regulatory environment, research, development and technology, access to financing, entrepreneurial training, market conditions, and culture.
	Entrepreneurial performance: indicators based on regional companies and employment.
	Impact: job creation, economic growth, and poverty reduction
Kon et al. [80] dos Santos [81] Cukier et al. [82]	Events, ecosystem generations, cultural values for entrepreneurship, quality of human capital, entrepreneurship in university incubators and technology parks, access to angel investment, number of startups, presence of high-tech companies, knowledge of methodologies, technology transfer processes, quantity of mentors, bureaucracy, tax expenses, accelerator quality.
Herrmann et al. [89]	The global ecosystem ranking: performance, financing, market reach, talent, startup experience, and growth index.

presents some methodologies for evaluating technological innovation ecosystems and the factors assessed by each. Understanding the mechanisms and approaches that contribute to generating disruptive innovations, especially in the context of PSS, can enable incorporating sustainability considerations in the early stages of innovation. This could bring about greater environmental awareness, social well-being, and economic benefits through a fresh perspective on product/service and process.

Some of the characteristics of innovation ecosystems include the diversity of participants, collaboration, the generation and sharing of knowledge, and the supporting infrastructure for developing new products. The most significant advantages of innovation ecosystems lie in attracting high-level talent and economic growth, disseminating innovative ideas, and using creativity and innovation to solve complex problems and social challenges that lead to disruptive innovations.

Understanding the mechanisms and approaches that contribute to the generation of disruptive innovations, especially in the context of sustainable products and services, can enable the incorporation of sustainability considerations in the early stages of innovation. This can increase environmental awareness, social well-being, and economic benefits through a new perspective on products, services, and processes. The market plays a fundamental role in product development. In the case of startups, the search for and validation of the target market should depend on more than just customer interest but also on the product’s scalability. Disruptive innovation is more likely to occur in startups because, in the conception and idea generation phase, these companies are not bound by predetermined approaches from established organizations. This phase allows for the exploration of ideas and the search for development partners to solidify them [90].

Regarding the technical aspects of innovation, the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), as presented by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are considered a measurement system to assess the maturity level of technology and its potential for market introduction based on project progress. TRLs are widely used worldwide, including by the United States government, for budgetary evaluation and innovation testing. The European Union also adopts TRLs as a basis for its innovation policy, using them as a policy tool in government support and resource allocation decisions. TRLs have paved the way for developing technical indicators that include additional dimensions in readiness metrics for software and hardware.

The relationship between sustainability, the front end of innovation (FEI), and TRLs lies in integrating sustainable principles during the early stages of innovation. TRLs can provide a framework for assessing the maturity of innovations that can be integrated into the innovation process, creating positive environmental, social, and economic outcomes.

This article proposes an approach to consider sustainability in the development of disruptive products, where sustainability is viewed as a growth factor and value addition to PSS that should be incorporated from the beginning of the front end of innovation (FEI) process.

3. Proposed Method

The theoretical framework attempted to identify the factors in the literature necessary to determine a product or PSS and the different approaches to sustainability in the product development process, specifically in the front end of innovation. Based on this criterion, the methodological sequence was planned in five consecutive phases, as shown in Figure 1.

• Phase 1:

The criteria are defined in this phase, establishing the elements that integrated the research baseline. Based on an integrative review, the macro themes that guided the analysis were identified: firstly, the analysis of sustainability: criteria, approaches, dimensions, evaluations, indicators, parameters, among others, and its relationship with innovation. The second criterion is understanding the front end of innovation (FEI) and its role within the new product development (NPD) process, especially for disruptive products.

The third criterion examines the role of the innovation ecosystem for startups, companies, and other ecosystem actors, considering ecosystem characteristics, dimensions, activities, interacting organizations, entrepreneurs, and their relationships. The analysis and integrative review identified a research gap regarding the inclusion of sustainability criteria in the front-end phase of disruptive product/service (PSS) development.

Activity 1—Search Strategy: The procedures and mechanisms were defined along the lines of the following factors: sustainability, disruptive innovation, and innovation ecosystems. Search commands, keywords, and logical and relational operators (AND and OR) were included. The publication period was limited to publications from 1999 to 2020, and the types considered were articles, books, theses, dissertations, and other relevant materials available for the research. The languages of the documents were English, Portuguese, and Spanish.

Activity 2—Database search: The initial general bibliographic search was performed in the Scopus^® database, which was selected due to its interdisciplinary nature and indexing scope [91]. Keyword combinations and exclusions were suggested to reduce the number of publications. The selected databases considering the research topic’s relevance were Scopus^®, Web of Science^®, EbSCO^®, and the CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel—of Brazil) Theses and Dissertations Database. After analyzing duplicates, data availability, and scope relevance, out of the initial 854 publications, 223 remained. It was observed that the presence of search terms does not guarantee relevance. Therefore, the titles, abstracts, and keywords were read, and the decision was made to include the keywords found in the most relevant articles, leading to a more specific choice of literature. After removing duplicate articles and those selected in the first phase, 103 additional documents were added, including 45 theses and dissertations.

Activities 3 and 4—Document management, standardization, and selection: The remaining articles were read for their title, keywords, abstract, and, in some cases, the introduction. Mendeley^® version 2.84 was used as the document management software. The documents were sorted according to the identification of the themes: disruptive innovation, sustainability, innovation ecosystem, and front end of innovation. Low-importance texts were eliminated, even if they had the keywords in their title or abstract, as they were not aligned with the research objective.

Activity 5—Composition of the document portfolio: In this activity, the articles were read in full, filtering and excluding those that did not demonstrate relevance to the investigated topic, resulting in 298 publications available in full text. To ensure that important articles were not overlooked because they were not present in any of the used databases, the references of the 20 most cited publications available in full text were analyzed to identify relevant articles in the context of the front end of innovation. As a result, 51 articles were selected and added to the final portfolio, resulting in 349 publications available in full text. The initial publication search was completed on 7 May 2020. The bibliographic update phase was based on publications from 2020 to December 2022. More than 60 additional publications relevant to the article’s topic were found during the update phase, of which 26 were added.

• Phase 2:

In this phase, the addressed topics were identified, analyzed, and their variables were considered. As an output of this phase, a tool was consolidated, which serves as a basis for the analysis of two macro elements: (a) the possibility of including sustainability within the front end of innovation (FEI) process; (b) the innovation ecosystem, its characteristics, relationships, maturity level, and actors. Figure 2 shows the front end of sustainable disruptive innovation (FESDI), which contains the characteristics and variables that could enhance sustainability in the FEI.

The central axis contains the spiral of knowledge, in which, when the understanding of innovation characteristics increases, the spiral opens new approaches to product development within the front end. Research works that were considered for building this approach include [10,53,54,58]. It can be observed on the right-hand side of the guidelines about the technical aspects to be developed in each of the seven stages of the disruptive product development process in the FEI.

As the spiral of knowledge advances, the right-hand side of the model addresses the steps to be taken by startups in their product creation process. In contrast, the left-hand side of the model presents the preliminary approach to sustainability that could be considered and integrated into each step of the disruptive innovation process. The considerations of the initiatives on the right-hand side were included in the structural activities of the FEI framework.

The process begins with opportunity identification at the center of the spiral, in which entrepreneurs are expected to identify an opportunity through opportunity discovery, idea generation, and problem identification. In the second stage, during the idea generation process, the entrepreneur establishes a learning process in constructing and consolidating a viable solution. In the third stage, during market validation, the entrepreneur tests their minimum viable product (MVP). Research works encompassing this stage include [64,84,92,93]. The next stage involves generating ideas to be validated by the market, passing through the “valley of death” through risk and uncertainty analysis. Suppose the entrepreneur can understand their market, its users, and the actual needs to be addressed. In that case, management activities follow in stage 5, in which the entrepreneur and the team will test modified or unique strategies and engage in customer testing to align their PSS (Solution/Product/Service) with their customer’s needs. If stage 5 is successful, the startup will consolidate the product concept in stage 6, in which customer requirements, technical and economic feasibility, indicators, tracking levels, and norms are established. Finally, in stage 7, the startup shows maturity in the process and seeks efficiency and scalability supported by analyzing indicators, metric tracking, and continuous learning.

On the left-hand side, in each stage, elements are guiding the integration of sustainability. Research works related to this direction include [35,94], which establish that, in order to include sustainability in the product design process, it is necessary to understand the company’s sustainability context and vision, as well as the product and material, and to comprehend the context where the product will be used, reused, or discarded, as well as the setting in which the product will be manufactured. In terms of technology inclusion, approaches presented in [35,95,96,97] emphasize the need for guidelines to create the product or PSS to map input and output flows of processes [98]. Additionally, the creation of eco-indicators contributes to the assessment of environmental implications [99]. Finally, two guiding strategies in this work are the triple bottom line and the circular economy [23,26,28,100], which permeate the product concept process and the pursuit of efficiency and scalability.

This initial theoretical proposal of the model allows for a general understanding of how sustainability could be achieved within a disruptive innovation process in the FEI, using experience in previous works as a basis for the model. Starting from the premise of the need for an innovation ecosystem to facilitate ventures and generate strategic synergies, the analysis of the triple helix of the innovation ecosystem is proposed next, as shown in Figure 3.

The triple helix integrates concepts discussed in the theoretical framework, particularly in [101,102], which describe the government shift in supporting a knowledge infrastructure, in which various actors interact and share knowledge for innovation [103]. The business structure, investments, public policies, companies, and a diversified economy enable the ecosystem.

Isenberg [104] identified six dimensions that interact with one another to consolidate an environment conducive to innovation: market, human capital, cultural support, finance, policy, and diversity. Si and Chen [71] presented indicators to measure the enthusiasm of an ecosystem (density, fluidity, connectivity, and diversity).

Figure 3 and Figure 4 were used as an initial tool to be tested in the field in order to identify similarities and differences in the general ecosystem for the two research scenarios, as well as the interaction of its actors and the possibility of developing a sustainable product or PSS.

• Phase 3:

A roadmap and semi-structured interview format were defined as research instruments for the interviews, as they provide a better understanding of the research theme’s scenario and values, and adaptability to participants’ responses. The interviews were recorded using a recorder and through audio and video recordings using video call tools (e.g., Teams, Zoom, Meet) with the acceptance of a confidentiality agreement. The interview responses were transcribed to maintain the verbatim constructions, enabling analysis of their content and interpretation of the data.

The interviewees encompassed an entrepreneur actively involved in the ecosystem, the owner of a startup, and two individuals with direct involvement in the ecosystem, including a collaborator from an incubator or accelerator. In the context of the research, the initial units of analysis were three startups in the phase of consolidating their products, having launched disruptive products with technological and sustainable elements in the market. These startups primarily focused on environmental and social aspects, as they had completed the process of disruptive innovation, considering sustainability as one of the fundamental pillars of their strategies.

The data collection techniques included non-participant observation, which involved participating in various events, monitoring the field on social networks, attending lectures, analyzing documents, and conducting semi-structured interviews.

General participant information was collected during the interviews, including name, age, role, and experience in their respective fields. The interview questions directly related to the systematic review of the three main research themes. The aim was to assess the participants’ perception and knowledge of the ecosystem, parameters for creating sustainable disruptive products in the front end of innovation (FEI), and sustainability parameters that can be replicated in the FEI.

Regarding knowledge of the ecosystem, specific questions were asked to identify how product creation occurs in the context of sustainability within this ecosystem. Some of the questions included: Who are the actors in the innovation ecosystem? How do you perceive the innovation ecosystem? How do you interpret the role of participating companies in the ecosystem? How do you interact within this ecosystem? What connections do you consider the most significant?

Concerning questions related to the FEI, some considerations were made to identify the possibility of developing a solution. Participants were asked how they identify opportunities for creating a disruptive product based on their experiences. Additionally, the market validation process and which technical tools and skills are relevant for managing uncertainties were discussed.

Questions related to sustainability addressed the concept of sustainability and how it was considered in the opportunity identification process. Environmental and social issues that are addressed in the context of the FEI were also explored. Furthermore, questions were raised about how the market perceives a disruptive product with a social or environmental focus, among other topics.

Focus groups were not used due to two factors: current public health restrictions and the potential for one participant’s response to influence the response of others. The individuals who participated in the interviews were selected based on the quality and breadth of information that best allowed for answering the research question of this work.

The interviews lasted between 45 and 70 min on average. Secondary data on the two ecosystems and the selected startups and characteristics of the FEI and the disruptive innovation process were collected throughout the research period and compiled digitally to facilitate access during the analysis. A research diary was maintained throughout the investigation to establish issues and discussion points.

To gain an in-depth understanding of the phenomenon, participant observations were conducted in the years 2020 (in Brazil) and 2021 (in Colombia). There were opportunities to test concepts and situations with classes in industrial ecology, project management and as a guest speaker within the framework of a diploma program for startups. While observing the phenomenon from a non-participant position, data were collected from the actors who shaped the Brazilian ecosystem in 2020. Additionally, an analysis was conducted on measuring social factors evaluated by platforms such as Pipe Social, which connects investors with impact startups.

• Phase 4:

In Phase 4, the research results (systematic and unsystematic reviews, interviews, participant and non-participant research) were thoroughly analyzed and triangulated to create a sustainability incorporation tool for technology-based companies (TBCs) to strengthen the development of their sustainable products or services. In this stage, the collected material was explored to construct a set of documents, known as a corpus, which was selected based on criteria of exhaustiveness, representativeness, homogeneity, and relevance, as outlined by Bardin [105]. The term “corpus” refers to the set of documents considered for analytical procedures, as defined by Bardin (

Table 5. Criteria for constituting the research corpus (adapted from Bardin [105]).

Criteria of completeness and non-selectivity	Covers all documents, excluding what is justifiable in terms of accuracy.
Criteria of representativeness	The analysis can be carried out on a sample of the material (if possible). The exhibition is a representative part of the initial universe. Not all material is susceptible to sampling (the universe must be reduced).
Criteria of homogeneity	Documents must comply with precise selection criteria and not present too much uniqueness (when possible).
Criteria of relevance	Adequate documents as a source of information to correspond to the objective of the analysis.

) [105].

During the exploration phase, the theme was selected as the unit of analysis, defined as the identification of common sense whose frequency implies something in the object of study. The data treatment involved the following steps:

(a)

Float reading of the material. In this stage, contact with the material is established, seeking an initial perception of its messages;

(b)

Choosing the documents to analyze (a priori) or selecting the collected documents for analysis (a posteriori);

(c)

Constructing the corpus of documents based on exhaustiveness, representativeness, homogeneity, and relevance.

(d)

Formulation of objectives and material preparation are steps aimed at assessing whether, with the available documentary corpus, it is possible to analyze the research question and make inferences that can be supported based on the theoretical foundation.

In the coding phase, ideas are organized and classified using an analytical identifier or code, allowing for comparisons with other segments of data. The codes used in this study were derived from the literature. Atlas.ti^® version 23 was selected as the supporting software for this stage. Figure 4 presents the selected codes according to the three research axes and the process of coding the material within the Atlas.ti software.

A total of 119 documents were analyzed and coded, including interviews, videos, reports, ecosystem analysis documents, secondary sources, and participant and non-participant research results. The coding process is a slow and delicate process that should consider the concepts of exhaustiveness, representativeness, homogeneity, and relevance.

Initially, preliminary connections were established among various codes, forming categories reinforcing the selected themes. Subsequently, the core codes that best represent each category, based on the research, were identified through a more in-depth analysis. This process culminated in creating a preliminary network exploring the proposed codes’ relationships.

Figure 5 shows this initial connection between categories and codes, highlighting the degree of proximity, interconnection, and affinity between them based on the analyzed evidence. The meaning of some of the symbols in the Atlas-ti software are the following: (a) the hash symbol "#" is used as the lead character for string variables (for example, #Ecosystem); (b) the diamond corresponds to a code; (c) the double diamond refers to a code group; and (d) the yellow circle appears when the ratio between the frequencies of codes surpasses a given threshold (for example, 5), which invites looking into co-occurrences of, for example, the code or the code group [106]. Co-occurrence takes place when codes have been applied either to the same quotation or to overlapping quotations.

It is important to note that the codes “FEI opportunity vision” and “evaluation and testing of concepts and ideas” are intrinsically related to the concepts of “product/service vision” and the “sustainability” category. This connection plays a significant role in the success of startups in developing innovative products.

Codes belonging to the “sustainability” category are closely associated with codes such as “evaluation and testing of ideas,” “product vision,” “ecosystem actors,” and “ecosystem.” On the other hand, the code “sustainability concept” is linked to “sustainability of companies,” establishing a causal relationship between how sustainability is assessed and the observation of sustainability in companies. According to the “IMPACT 2021” report entitled “Discovering and Recognizing the Innovation and Impact Ecosystem of Latin America” [107], the interconnection between innovation and sustainability is described as follows: “These terms are increasingly present in the daily lives of companies, regardless of their size, and can be integrated so that innovation contributes to sustainability. The innovation ecosystem offers many opportunities for companies and startups to collaborate in a business generation chain, resulting in long-term efficiency and sustainability gains. Sustainable innovation implies solving real everyday problems, with positive impacts on society and the environment, supported by technology” [107].

According to the IMPACT 2021 report, sustainability evaluation is based on the alignment of startups with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In 2021, some SDGs that had a significant impact included SDG 8: decent work and economic growth, SDG 11: sustainable cities and communities, and SDG 12: responsible consumption and production, with the latter being widely represented in the analyzed companies. The shared vision among interviewees and various sources, such as videos and reports, converges on the criterion of cultural diversity and on solutions to incorporate sustainability from the perspective of the local context and user needs. This convergence defines possible paths in developing products, services, and processes. They emphasize that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to any problem, and potential solutions should be adapted to each case to optimize available resources. Additionally, interviewees highlight the importance of projects that consider stakeholders.

In the front end of innovation analysis, sequences and links between the codes were established. In Figure 6, the bars in each code represent the “magnitude” “G”, i.e., the number of citations each code received, and “density” “D”, indicating the code’s relationship with others. This enables a preliminary analysis of the connections between codes. It is important to note that the “innovation platform” code is part of the initial codes analyzed in the front end of innovation but was not subject to additional analysis, remaining subject to future studies.

Figure 7 shows that the network of analysis of the innovation ecosystem codes is strongly aligned with sustainability codes, such as the concept of sustainability with 31 codifications and the code: ways to evaluate sustainability, with 49 codifications. The qualitative analysis process of the sources provides a more profound analysis as it proposes approaches and paths that do not originate from the structured literature but from interviews, reports, documents, audio, videos, and other analyzed sources.

Triangulation of Results

According to the interviewees, market validation involves going out, researching, asking the right questions, and not trying to force the market to say what the entrepreneur wants to hear. When compared with Tidd and Bessant [84], these indications emphasize the importance of allowing flexible flows and adaptations that enable the process to have a flow of actions, define the business, and create a product/service.

In Colombia, there is an environmental sustainability criterion within the innovation criteria of IDIC 2021 [108], which includes actions such as:

• Creation of programs managed by chambers of commerce and regional autonomous corporations to integrate research groups in environmental sciences from recognized universities and local companies in the development of strategies to minimize the environmental impact of their production activities.
• Implementation of an international alliance program for sustainable innovations aimed at supporting international associations in the areas of climate, environment, and energy within the framework of the triple helix.
• Training programs for companies to obtain certification in the ISO 14001 standard [109] with the contribution of chambers of commerce.
• Strengthening policies and regulations for coverage, access, and quality of sanitation, ensuring the presence of wastewater treatment plants in the territory.
• Creation of programs against deforestation, illegal mining, and non-renewable exploitation of water resources.

While these technical guidelines from territorial entities gather inputs and recommendations for states to improve their performance in the Departmental Innovation Index for Colombia (IDIC), they do not reflect the needs, possibilities, and tools that entrepreneurs need to develop environmental sustainability as part of the core of their startup within Colombia’s entrepreneurial ecosystem.

• Consolidation of the STRL Tool

The STRL was designed to be a means of verifying the level of sustainability maturity. It uses the technology readiness levels (TRLs) as the baseline and incorporates sustainability measurement criteria. It consists of a series of steps in which information related to the structure of the PSS is consolidated while simultaneously considering the sustainability of the PSS in the social, environmental, and economic dimensions.

The sustainability measurement would not make much sense if only a simple number reflecting the reality of the entrepreneurial-based technology (EBT) were obtained at the end of the measurement process without leading to a path for improving the sustainability of the PSS. Therefore, the tool was created with short-, medium-, and long-term scenarios to enhance sustainability within the EBT.

In

Table 6. Elements that compose the STRL (Sustainable Technology Readiness Level).

(1) STR Level	(2) T—Technology Readiness Level TRL	(3) S—Sustainable Technology Readiness Level FEI Concept:	(4) Criterion to Be Met at the Maturity Level	(5) STRL Parameter	(6) STRL Parameter STRL Scope Documented Work of STRL
1	Observed Principles	Identification of opportunities	Context and Sustainability vision.	Overall idea of the product/service or PSS.	Context in which it will be developed. Participants have a vision and position regarding the environmental and social characteristics of their product/service or PSS. Definition of interest in solutions to social or environmental issues.
2	Concept and applied technology	Idea Generation Process:	Raw material selection.	Preliminary conceptual design of the product/service or PSS.	Understanding the basic principles of the design. Clarity about the involved stakeholders. Material and input selection criteria are based on environmental criteria. Definition of product life cycle.
3	Analytical concept with critical functions and features		Technological innovation of production processes.	Preliminary conceptual design of the product/service or PSS.	Mapping of innovative technologies. Inclusion of features such as reuse/recycling, proper disposal, or life cycle extension. Environmental and social implications of the processes.
4	Functional prototype in a laboratory environment	Market validation:	Possibilities of including environmentally consistent and socially responsible options.	The preliminary conceptual design of the product/service or PSS was validated in the intended context.	Critical functions of the product or service are evaluated in an environment where they will be used. Assessment of user and buyer valuation regarding the environmental consciousness and social responsibility of their product. The performance of the product/service meets the criteria defined by the user. Knowledge and compliance with environmental and social regulations.
5	Prototype with critical functions in a relevant environment	Risk and uncertainty analysis:	Inventory analysis of materials and input/output criteria flow.	Preliminary conceptual design of the product/service or PSS.Technology validated in its critical function in relevant environments.	Preliminary definition of performance requirements and relevant environment. Identification and analysis of critical functions of the product/service or PSS. Analysis of scale effects.
6	Model in a relevant environment	Management:	Leadership and verification of sustainable criteria. Possibility of generating network processes with other EBTs.	Preliminary conceptual design of the product/service or PSS in a relevant environment.	Definition of performance requirements and relevant environment. Identification and analysis of critical functions of the element Design of the element supported by appropriate models for verifying critical functions. Reports of tests with the model.
7	Model in an operational environment	Product/service/PSS Concept:	Application of modularity and energy efficiency criteria.	The product/service or PSS is validated in an actual situation, identifying its adverse effects of use/purpose or function.	Definition of performance requirements, including the definition of the operational environment. Review of the proposed EBT at the environmental and social levels. Evaluated product ready for manufacturing and use.
8	Complete real system	Efficiency and scalability pursuit:	Application of eco-indicators: cost/purpose vs. efficiency.	Product/service or PSS in production or stable execution.Complete and qualified system.	Acceptance for operability tests in other environments and places. Validation by stakeholders of PSS characteristics. Documented criteria for use, reuse, repowering, or recycling. Modular thinking under product/service or PSS criteria and functions.
9	Real system demonstrated in the operating environment		Manufacture, use, and reuse at the end of life in a sustainable way.	Preliminary conceptual design of the product/service.Current system in an operational environment. Mature technology.	Operation report and service execution plans. Scale analysis that includes quality, environmental, social, and regulatory criteria. Analysis of logistics integration in a sustainable way.

, the STRL is presented. The level is provided in column 1, following the technology readiness levels (TRLs) from level 1 to level 9 for ease of implementation. In column 2, the definition of the degree of technological readiness for each level is given, starting with TRL 1, which represents observed principles, and ending with TRL 9, which denotes an actual system demonstrated in an operational environment.

Column 3 presents the construction of the development criteria established in the FEI, starting from identifying opportunities and ending with the pursuit of efficiency and scalability. Column 4 presents the criteria to be met according to the maturity level of the STRL, derived from the unfolding of the FESDI tool, including the definition of the context and sustainability vision, and ending with the criteria for manufacturing, use, reuse, and sustainable end-of-life.

Column 5 establishes the parameter the level must reach to obtain the PSS. Column 6 presents the scope of each level and the documented work representing the analysis and execution of the STRL levels.

• Phase 5:

The tool was validated in Colombia, specifically in the entrepreneurial ecosystem of Santander state, in the city of Bucaramanga. The EBTs selected for the tool validation were winners of the MuEBTe Santander program, which is a program for the creation and maturation of EBTs in Santander.

The MuEBTe Santander program aims to provide funding and support for projects aimed at creating and maturing EBTs, with the assistance of entities with research, development, and innovation capabilities and experience in identifying and supporting such ventures or companies. Within the MuEBTe Santander program framework, selected entrepreneurs receive support in creating EBTs, with the following strategic focus areas prioritized for the Santander region: biotechnology, energy, health, agribusiness, manufacturing, and tourism.

The target audience of the MuEBTe Santander program call for proposals includes entrepreneurs, researchers, students, companies, higher education institutions, technological development centers, research centers, innovation and productivity centers, research groups, incubators, foundations, or organizations involved in the creation, strengthening, and expansion of EBTs that have a project focused on the creation or maturation of an EBT.

As a result of the two calls for proposals in 2022 and 2023, the first iteration selected eight EBTs in the creation phase and two EBTs in the maturation phase. In the second iteration, four EBTs in the ideation phase and four EBTs in the maturation phase were selected.

Communication has been established with the winning EBTs from the first call for proposals to encourage their participation in this research. Four EBTs agreed to participate in the validation of the proposed tool. The sector and focus of each EBT are detailed in

Table 7. Description of participating EBTs.

Description	EBT Sector	EBT Focus
EBT 1	Agribusiness	Its PSS is an innovation in the virtualization of agro-industrial processes.
EBT 2	Energy	Its PSS is a breakthrough in outdoor lightning protection systems.
EBT 3	Agribusiness	Its PSS is the intelligent monitoring of warehouses aimed at automating resources.
EBT 4	Manufacturing	Its product is aimed at teaching centers to enhance the Robotics Learning Experience.

.

All participants were informed about the research objective and signed a confidentiality agreement.

Entrepreneurs have different concepts and perspectives on sustainability in both the process and the product. In EBT 1 and 4, the initial sustainability considerations focus on the economic aspect. On the other hand, EBT 3 is concerned with waste minimization and resource utilization. It is important to note that they do not consider the logistics process or the CO₂ emissions associated with manufacturing base products.

4. Results

4.1. Validation Results of the STRL Tool

The evaluation results of the STRL tool will be presented for the nine criteria applied to the four EBTs:

STRL 1: Analysis of the opportunity identification phase of FEI and the sustainability context and vision process of FESDI. Regarding STRL 1, EBT 1 declared 100% compliance with level 1 considerations of STRL. According to EBT 1, they have identified the context in which they operate, as well as the general idea of their PSS (Sustainable Product or Service). The EBT participants claim to have a vision regarding environmental and social characteristics related to the PSS and express interest in developing solutions to environmental and social issues. EBT 2 has not considered its stance on environmental and social characteristics related to its PSS. EBT 3 and EBT 4 have not shown interest in generating solutions to environmental or social issues.

STRL 2: Analysis of the idea generation phase of FEI and the raw material selection process of FESDI. Regarding STRL 2, EBT 1 has an 8/10 compliance rating at this level, emphasizing that although the manufacturer knows their product’s life cycle, they have not yet defined the life cycle of their PSS. EBT 2 declares 100% compliance with the raw material selection items. EBT 3 achieved compliance in the preliminary design and identification of raw materials stakeholders for the product/service. However, it did not consider environmental criteria as part of the raw material selection process, nor did it consider the product life cycle. EBT 4 does not have environmental criteria for raw material selection or a defined product life cycle.

STRL 3: Analysis of the idea generation phase of FEI and the technological innovation process of FESDI. Regarding STRL 3, EBT 1 declares 100% compliance with STRL 3. EBT 2 emphasizes the importance of technological innovation, but, at present, there is no analysis considering the PSS in the inputs and outputs of processes, as well as social considerations. EBT 3 does not consider reuse, recycling, proper disposal, or expanding the product’s life cycle. The product is electronic, and it is considered difficult to recycle. It also does not consider the inputs and outputs of processes and their social implications. EBT 3 focuses on determining the level of operability and safety of PSS usage. The product of EBT 4 consists mainly of electronic components, and due to the lack of specific regulations, the entrepreneurs point out that they do not consider features such as recycling or proper disposal. However, they might consider expanding the product life cycle in the future. They do not consider the inputs and outputs of processes and their environmental implications.

STRL 4: Analysis of the market validation phase of FEI and the possibility of including environmentally consistent and socially responsible options in the FESDI process. Concerning STRL 4, EBTs 1, 3, and 4 believe that potential users or buyers would not value the environmental consciousness of the PSS. However, regarding social responsibility of the PSS, EBT 1 states that their potential buyers would appreciate the social responsibility of the PSS, while EBT 3 says they would not. Consequently, EBTs 1 and 3 consider their PSS to have taken the SDGs into account, while EBT 4 does not consider them in relation to its product.

STRL 5: Analysis of the risk and uncertainty analysis phase of FEI, the inventory analysis process of materials, and the flow of input and output criteria of FESDI. Regarding STRL 5, EBT 1 shows 100% compliance with the criteria. EBT 2, based on the work in the validation phase, declares 100% compliance with the degree of conformity. EBT 3 demonstrates a high level of compliance with items related to critical functions for the product and criteria defined by the user, the elements required for the use of the product or service and relevant laws, regulations, and decrees. However, for EBTs 3 and 4, environmental and social regulations were not considered for the execution of the product or service.

STRL 6: Analysis of the management phase of FEI and the leadership and verification process of criteria and the possibility of generating network processes of FESDI. Regarding STRL 6, EBT 1 declares that the leadership criteria have not been considered in terms of the environmental, legal, and social aspects. EBTs 1, 3, and 4 declare that they do not have established criteria for the selection and evaluation of inputs, suppliers, or criteria for selecting materials with a lower environmental and social impact. Similarly, they do not have environmental indicators for the development, life cycle, or use of the PSS. For EBT 2, the PSS does not yet have environmental indicators regarding its development and use. The entrepreneurs pointed out that the carbon footprint is being measured, but specific indicators are unavailable.

STRL 7: Analysis of the product concept phase of FEI and the application of modularity and energy efficiency criteria of FESDI. Concerning STRL 7, EBTs 1 and 3 do not have verification of their purpose on the social and environmental levels. EBT 1 declares that the product is not ready for manufacturing and use. For EBT 2, regarding identifying environmental events due to use and function, the entrepreneurs pointed out that there is an environmental impact on the PSS due to corrosion and adverse climate characteristics in the scenarios in which the PSS should perform its function. However, they do not have measurement and identification of other adverse factors. EBT 4 declares completeness with 10/10 in applying modularity and energy efficiency criteria.

STRL 8: Analysis of the efficiency and scalability search phase of FEI and the process related to purchasing, acquiring, and applying cost vs. efficiency eco-indicators of FESDI. In the context of STRL 8, regarding the validation process of the PSS, EBT 1 declares that the PSS is not validated by all stakeholders. For EBT 2, the PSS is not yet in the production or stable execution phase, and given the conditions under which the PSS will perform its function, the product was not designed incrementally or modularly. EBT 3 indicates that its PSS has documented criteria for maintenance, reuse, and recycling, is validated by stakeholders, is designed incrementally and modularly, and is energy-efficient, which is necessary for this EBT due to the random characteristics of the farm where monitoring will occur. EBT 4 states that its product does not have documented maintenance, reuse, repurposing, and recycling criteria.

STRL 9: Analysis of the efficiency and scalability search phase of FEI and the process of manufacturing, use, reuse, and end-of-life in a sustainable manner of FESDI. Regarding STRL 9, EBTs 1 and 3 do not have scalability for their PSS and, therefore, do not include an analysis of social and environmental sustainability. They have not yet considered a logistics route that minimizes CO₂ emissions, nor do they include criteria for purchasing inputs that consider aspects minimizing environmental impact. Their PSS does not yet have environmental certifications, and they have not considered creating value from the analysis and utilization of their waste. In EBT 2, the PSS does not yet have environmental certificates, but they have been working on measuring CO₂ emissions for two years.

For EBT 4, this is the most critical level with 2/15 points because EBT 4 does not comply with environmental, social, or governmental criteria. Their logistics do not occur sustainably, the manufacturing of the product does not consider a logistics route that minimizes CO₂ emissions, the purchase of inputs does not consider aspects minimizing environmental impact, they do not have environmental certifications, and the product does not create value from the analysis and utilization of waste.

Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term Strategies Based on Results

To illustrate how short-, medium-, and long-term strategies were generated for the TBCs after applying the STRL tool, it is observed in Figure 8 that each STRL level was evaluated from 1 to 9. The definition of time horizons aligns with the front end of innovation (FEI), where TBCs initially have significant flexibility. As the product or PSS matures, they exhibit greater complexity in unfolding the activities to be achieved, thus establishing a short-term horizon for STRL 1–4, a medium-term horizon for STRL 5–7, and a long-term horizon for STRL 8–9.

• Short-term strategies:

For EBT 1, which declared compliance with STRL1 and has a vision, mission, and environmental and social characteristics related to its PSS, short-term strategies to achieve full sustainability integration according to the STRL tool criteria could include:

• Prioritizing the end-of-life approach for the product or service, focusing on features like reuse, recycling, or material restoration;
• Determining the criteria to clarify your product or service processes through sustainability reports, recognitions, labels, or environmental commitments;
• Determining the formation of multidisciplinary, accessible, diverse teams with gender equity;
• Establishing clear criteria for user/customer logistics, maintenance, restoration, and re-empowerment of the product or service.

• Medium-term strategies:

In analyzing risks and uncertainties in material inventory analysis and FESDI entry and exit criteria flow management, EBT 1 presents 100% compliance with analysis criteria in the FEI management phase and the leadership and verification process criteria. However, EBT 1 stated that environmental, legal, and social leadership criteria were not considered or verified. Additionally, they do not have established criteria for selecting and evaluating inputs or suppliers, nor do they have criteria for selecting materials with lower environmental and social impact. Likewise, they do not have environmental indicators for the PSS’s development, lifecycle, or disposal. Regarding the application of modularity and energy efficiency criteria, EBT 1 declared that they still need to clearly define the purpose of the EBT in social and environmental aspects, emphasizing that the product is not ready for manufacturing and use.

Medium-term strategies to achieve STRL compliance could include:

• Selecting local suppliers, small businesses, cooperatives, and associations with a social and environmental focus;
• The ethical sourcing of food and supplies;
• Generating indicators related to the destination of waste (recycling, reuse, landfill);
• Asking if, in their area of influence, there are products and services with novel characteristics that consider environmental and social aspects? Do they have a larger market? Would you have more market opportunities by including them?
• Creating a checklist for your users/customers to have the experience you programmed or designed. Determining the completeness of your product or service;
• Creating assessment and verification points for processes at the functional and social and environmental implication levels.

• Long-term strategies:

In the analysis of the FEI’s efficiency and scalability search phase and the related processes of buying, acquiring, and applying cost/purpose versus efficiency eco-indicators in STRL categories 8 and 9, EBT 1 responses indicate the following: All stakeholders still need to validate the PSS. EBT 1 lacks scalability in its PSS and does not include an analysis of social and environmental sustainability. They have not considered identifying logistic routes that minimize CO₂ emissions, nor do they include criteria for purchasing inputs that consider aspects minimizing environmental impact. The PSS also needs environmental certifications, and they have yet to consider creating value through analyzing and utilizing their waste.

Long-term strategies to achieve STRL compliance could include:

• Periodically reviewing the product or service to verify the usability of the selected criteria when initially designed;
• Considering inputs with low environmental impact that contribute to social sustainability;
• Creating commercial alliances that seek proximity to the customer and minimize CO₂ emissions and energy expenditure;
• Entering new markets through commercial alliances and communication strategies with stakeholders;
• Generating and publishing sustainability actions in reports, entering new markets that value sustainability;
• Valuing a materials and industrial ecology strategy, verifying creation of a new spin-off.

4.2. Validation of the Triple Helix of the Innovation Ecosystem in FESDI

As shown in Figure 4, when analyzing the responses of the EBTs regarding the stakeholders of the innovation ecosystem, it is verified whether these stakeholders are present in the EBTs. If so, the way in which the EBTs observe the actor or stakeholder interacting with the ecosystem is investigated, with the following options: Totally Active, Active, Neither Active Nor Passive, Passive, and Totally Passive. The results of the stakeholder analysis in the first axis, referred to as “Academy and Supporting Organizations,” are as follows:

EBT 1 does not consider research institutes or infrastructure and telecommunications actors as support organizations and observes a passive attitude from ecosystem stakeholders. The most significant connections within the ecosystem for this EBT are the Bucaramanga Chamber of Commerce, S-INNOVA, and open innovation programs. EBT 2 considers that educational institutions act passively in the ecosystem. Likewise, mentors and access to guidance are very basic and passive. For EBT 2, the government and the regulatory environment are critical factors in fostering entrepreneurship and new entrepreneurs.

EBT 3 considers that the infrastructure and telecommunications actor does not provide its full potential, making it challenging to establish Industry 4.0 in remote locations. For example, bringing weather stations to farms that do not have satellite connectivity for 4G data communication. Among the stakeholders, EBT 3 highlights customers as the most important, as they are the ones who have the ultimate need. EBT 4 considers that there is no actual participation of research institutes and is unaware of accelerators. In terms of incubation, it recognizes the role of Tecnoparque.

4.2.1. In the Human Capital Axis

EBT 2 acknowledges the existence of mentors and access to mentoring in the ecosystem but considers their action is passive. EBT 3 states that, although the participation of entrepreneurs is active, it could be broader due to the lack of resources that prevent them from impacting the sector as they should. Regarding ventures in various stages, it indicates that they are neither active nor passive because they are in the vicinity but not recognized or known. While angel investments are helpful, they are difficult to find.

For EBT 4, this axis involves entrepreneurs, ventures in various stages, and companies with innovation platforms, but they all operate in isolation, generating few opportunities for recognition and local market opportunities. They are unfamiliar with any angel investors, highlighting the need for mentoring, especially in the early stages of a startup. They mention Tecnoparque SENA.

4.2.2. In the Government and Regulatory Environment Axis

EBT 2 considers that there are public policies that contribute to creating new entrepreneurs and perceives it as active. It also considers the financing organizations as fully active in their role. Although there are open events for entrepreneurs, they do not provide a real connection, so they are neither active nor passive.

EBT 3 recognizes the government’s active role and regulatory environment in the development of the ecosystem. It highlights the hydrogen route as a process from sector planning to promote entrepreneurship. It also points out that, although there is entrepreneurial training, it takes up the entrepreneur’s time and only contributes a little because it does not generate real connections with customers, resulting in a lack of impact on the entrepreneurial culture. Regarding ecosystem knowledge management, it mentions that if it exists, it is not recognized, except perhaps at Tecnoparque SENA, where entrepreneurs share information and present their products for testing and improvement within Tecnoparque SENA. EBT 4 believes it does not know policies that contribute to creating new entrepreneurs or formulating innovation policies. However, it clarifies that there are organizations that finance projects, entrepreneurial training, an entrepreneurial community, and open and continuous events for entrepreneurs. It believes in the need to manage the ecosystem and create links that complement the development of enterprises.

Network Density Axis

EBT 2 considers that there are connections between support organisms, generating neither active nor passive actions. Similarly, it points out that there are routes for the future evolution of the ecosystem in management and describes them as fully active. EBT 3 declares that the connection between entrepreneurs is still developing and very circumstantial. Regarding the connection with support organisms, it indicates that state organizations appear at events, but these organizations are neither visible nor proactive. They do not promote entrepreneurship by leveraging brands or marketing to support EBTs effectively.

According to EBT 4, there are passively characterized network density features that relate to connections between entrepreneurs, support organisms, and both actors acting passively. It is unknown whether there are routes for the future evolution of the ecosystem in management. However, it highlights MuEBTe Santander as a proposal that involves and contributes to the financial improvement of enterprises.

4.3. Intrinsic Characteristics of Innovation Ecosystems

In analyzing the ecosystems of Santa Catarina-Florianopolis and Santander-Bucaramanga, similarities were established, such as the existence of government as a driver of public policies, the presence of entities and associations that foster entrepreneurship, and the dynamics of ecosystems. In the Florianopolis ecosystem, there is a stronger connection with regional companies, their challenges and opportunities, opening their needs to startups or EBTs that can contribute with innovative solutions adaptable to the organization. The LINK LAB, a space within the ACATE Innovation Center Primavera, is recognized as the place that enables mediation and events where small and medium-sized companies and startups generate connections and ideas to create solutions and new products.

On the other hand, the state and universities are strongly represented at S-INNOVA and, to a lesser extent, companies seeking solutions. The entrepreneurial ecosystem is in the growth stage according to the maturity levels of an ecosystem [80].

In the Colombia ecosystem, there is the coexistence of the Chamber of Commerce of Bucaramanga, an incubator, an accelerator, representative actors of the ecosystem such as ECOPETROL, co-working spaces, a strong presence of mentors, and a conducive environment for startups to validate their value propositions or MVPs. The building houses various technologies, capabilities, instruments, and machinery for EBTs and other ventures to advance in consolidating and testing solutions. There are continuous events, human capital, technological human capital, bureaucracy, and mentors.

However, this ecosystem still lacks greater network density among actors, especially between entrepreneurs and angel investors, a larger number of startups, knowledge management, entrepreneurial culture, and the ability to provide services to regional companies.

Although there are public policies and toolkits with guidelines for project implementation and innovation policies presented in IDIC 2021 Colombia based on OCYT, and innovation policies in Brazil for states to improve their performance in aspects such as political environment, economic environment, and promoting actions, startups are unaware of these mechanisms because they exist in political spheres that do not have replicability in the tangible action of startups or EBTs. Educational and strengthening programs exist, but in Colombia, they remain in the early stages and do not promote connections among actors or their visibility as a platform for the growth of startups.

One of the reasons why the ecosystem of the state of Santander and the city of Bucaramanga grows timidly lies in the culture, which is usually closed and distrustful on the part of organizations and the business sector, and the lack of awareness of the potential of regional ventures in consolidating solutions.

The ecosystem of the state of Santa Catarina, especially the city of Florianopolis, is considered a mature ecosystem because, in addition to the mentioned characteristics of a growing ecosystem, it presents advantages in terms of opening activities at the international level, the presence of events that generate greater visibility for entrepreneurs, and the possibility of angel investment from various sources. Companies see startups as an opportunity to solve complex problems that have not been addressed due to the complexity of structured organizations and the lack of teams for new assignments and projects.

The learning process of the Florianopolis ecosystem and the knowledge generation by the actors enhance and bring greater complexity and quality to value-added and sustainable solutions for the dynamics of startups and entrepreneurship ecosystems.

5. Discussion

The qualitative analysis revealed the relationship between the initial parameters of the FEI, such as idea generation and opportunities, and their validation process in the market, which includes culture, society, and determining the stage at which the EBT or startup is developing, with greater complexity if the EBT has a higher level of disruptiveness. This relationship was observed in the validation of the STRL tool, in which participating EBTs, although part of the same ecosystem, had validation processes of the STRL with a higher degree of complexity due to the novelty of the product or service.

SDG 12 (responsible production and consumption) had prominence in this work, since the intention was to change production systems from the initial phase of innovation aiming to foster sustainability in creating products, services, or PSS. This involves the development of solutions that incorporate sustainability and strategies to reduce or mitigate the impacts generated via production systems on social, environmental, and economic levels [3,100]. However, other SDGs were also present in this research.

There were variations in the integration of sustainability throughout the research, ranging from startups or EBTs focused on the development of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with a highlight in Brazil on goal 11 (sustainable cities and communities), goal 12 (responsible consumption and production), and goal 13 (climate action), while in Colombia, the SDGs were integrated across five strategic axes: water, the agricultural sector, women, plastics, and the circular economy. There is a concern for reducing environmental impacts and obtaining financial returns through carbon credits generated by EBTs. It is important to note that initiatives such as innovation hubs and impact-driven programs like Innomarathon drive the ecosystem in Central and South America via incorporating the SDGs into the innovation process, and some of the considered themes were: (a) zero hunger (Goal 2), by improving conditions in the agricultural sector through solutions based on Industry 4.0 (pointed out in Section 4.2); and (b) decent work and economic growth (Goal 8), by contributing to achieving Target 8.3 components of entrepreneurship, creativity, and innovation in micro-, small-, and medium-sized enterprises [110].

When analyzing corporate social responsibility (CSR) management in Colombia, the opinions of startups are divided: for startups for which market validation of their business idea has represented a significant effort, both SDGs and CSR are addressed as values for their products or services (PSS) to generate commitment and trust in their PSS. For startups in both Brazil and Colombia, this still represents a potential future investment; however, consumer pressure, along with investor pressure, has led to the incorporation of considerations for product development, processes, and supply chain, with a particular focus on reducing CO₂ emissions as a potential attribute of innovation in the EBTs’ PSS.

Regarding the validation process of the product in the market and how the considered sustainable characteristics can influence or not the product market entry, it was noticed that sustainability and the criteria considered sustainable depend on the entrepreneurs’ vision, the culture in which they are embedded, and the degree of innovation of their product. An innovative PSS generally has cutting-edge technological features that are not typically locally manufactured in the market where the EBT operates. Startups that target B2B customers often emphasize social and environmental aspects, while B2B2C or B2C startups focus more on sales and positioning, indicating relevance to the end customer.

Two predominant factors can be identified regarding skills, techniques, processes, and tools in consolidating a disruptive process. The first factor relates to the potential for generating knowledge, which comes from personnel with professional qualifications, master’s and doctoral degrees in engineering and health sciences, who work on technological and innovation development aspects. The second factor concerns the product validation process, which usually occurs based on needs and possibilities on a scale and in companies that test the product with a premium license or through free opportunities with the commitment to enable the necessary tests for PSS validation.

In managing uncertainties, entrepreneurs usually identify and manage them based on external possibilities. There are significant market uncertainties in the Bucaramanga ecosystem, stemming from the low recognition of startups as solution providers and the lack of knowledge-sharing and support among startups of different sizes.

The following sustainability parameters that can be replicated in product development were identified based on qualitative analysis and validation of the sustainability assessment tool for EBTs. The main points observed are as follows:

The concept of sustainability is broad and depends on the entrepreneur’s perspective. It is important to consider the product’s opportunities in a competitive market, seeking a long-term competitive advantage. Additionally, sustainability is related to the ecosystem, its actors, and the potential for expansion in a market with a community vision.

In the Colombian ecosystem, there is a focus on reducing environmental impacts and generating financial returns through carbon credits generated by EBTs. This is achieved through crop monitoring processes and georeferencing systems, which determine possibilities for economic benefits beyond the main crop.

In developing EBTs products or services, the entrepreneur can enhance the product’s sustainability. Two approaches were observed in the evaluated startups:

(a)

Integration of the consumer in the sustainability chain: In this approach, startups aim to involve the consumer in the sustainability chain of the product or service. This requires consumer awareness to close the reuse and use loop and minimize waste. Startups work to raise awareness in their community and explore opportunities to interact positively with the marketplace.

(b)

Focus on durability and recyclability: Some startups do not see opportunities to influence the community in which they operate. In these cases, they focus on the product’s durability throughout its useful life and its recyclability after use. These startups focus on the product’s original purpose.

These sustainability parameters can be applied in product development, integrating sustainable principles and practices throughout the entire product lifecycle, from conception to proper disposal. This promotes the reduction in environmental impacts and the closed cycle of materials.

6. Conclusions

The qualitative analysis process of the sources provides a more profound analysis as it proposes approaches and paths that do not come from the structured literature but, instead, from the interviews, reports, documents, audio, videos, and other sources that were analyzed and coded, and which at this moment represent documentary sources. The analysis of the sources generates a network that, in addition to establishing natural interactions between the codes, establishes the level of contradiction or argumentation of the code and its characterization. Furthermore, the results of the interviews revealed that disruptive innovation occurs when the entrepreneur can define and understand themselves and, from that position, discover their target audience. According to an interviewee from an incubator, disruptive innovation does not happen from the outside but from the inside out. This criterion converges with Sarasvathy’s model [111], applied to the reality of entrepreneurs, which begins with identifying aspects such as who they are, what they know, and who they know to determine what they can do and their market vision.

In terms of sustainability, there are frameworks such as the circular economy and cradle-to-cradle (C2C) that establish, for the design of industrial products, that manufacturers are encouraged to go beyond energy efficiency (minimizing consumption and reducing impacts) and commit to the use of renewable energy during the manufacturing process. Ideally, the industry should become self-sufficient, producing all the energy it consumes. However, this contrasts with the reality of startups, as in their process of developing the PSS, they can include sustainable aspects in product development via considering composition, modularity, a lesser number of parts, and social characteristics in the startup’s DNA, but not necessarily energy considerations. This is due to a considerable percentage of PSS having electronic components that are not manufactured in the country and, when manufactured in the country, have a different versatility and cost than Chinese-made products. These products typically do not have considerations for minimizing energy consumption.

In the ecosystem, two fundamental aspects can be highlighted. The first aspect is verifying actors in the innovation ecosystem present in Latin America, who carry out their activities with companies that pose challenges and seek innovative solutions that come from startups, mainly technology-based enterprises (EBTs) or technology-based ventures that have reached a validated PSS or product and are looking for B2B connections to sell their PSS. The relevance of incubators, accelerators, and network density that allows connections between them stand. In order to progress, companies should develop collaborative strategies, which are possible with innovation focused on collaborative stakeholders such as customers, the environment, and social and governance aspects. Some companies invest in smart tech solutions for waste management and loss reduction in the supply chain, and open challenges for agritech to find innovative solutions for cocoa chain management, increase productivity sustainably, ensure fruit quality, and restore degraded areas.

The second fundamental aspect is the contrast between the different stages of startups, as only startups that have reached a higher level of growth and maturity can participate in exponential networks and connections to develop their product. On the other hand, startups in the final stage of product development, aiming to make the product ready for sale and gain visibility, face barriers in their development due to a lack of network density to grow. This fact has been validated and confirmed in Colombia in the EBTs of the Santander state, as the interviews confirm the existence of this discontinuity, lack of recognition, and invisibility of actors in the ecosystem.

In the same scenario, there is both recognition and invisibility of ecosystem actors. Additionally, there are inequalities in access to resources and opportunities within the ecosystem. It is notable that in innovation and entrepreneurship calls offering training, coaching, and funding for business model or technology development, they typically present selection processes that tend to favor groups of startups that have gone through previous calls, which means their ideas are mature, typically reaching a TRL 3 (Technology Readiness Level 3). Meanwhile, actors who need an opportunity to develop a developed concept or model beyond the minimum viable product (MVP) are not part of this ecosystem.

This observation is valid for both the Florianópolis ecosystem and the Santander ecosystem. Therefore, both ecosystems must continue with strategies such as Technoparks, open and collaborative innovation networks, pre-incubators, universities, research centers, and collaborative networks that can work together to build ecosystem density, effectively promoting collaboration and innovation for technological development.

The ecosystems mentioned in this article are at the macro level, which does not mean they do not interact with other levels. They can overlap and interact on some occasions. A micro-level ecosystem can benefit from innovation policies at the macro level that encourage research and technological development. Understanding the needs of each ecosystem and their relationships can help identify opportunities to strengthen the innovation ecosystem, such as giving more emphasis to micro-level startups, especially if they are from rural areas or outside metropolitan areas.

By focusing on sustainability during the front end of innovation, the generation of ideas that align with the goals of sustainable development is favored. Sustainability challenges such as climate change, resource scarcity, or social inequality can inspire innovative solutions that address these issues in conjunction with product or PSS development.

As ideas progress in the innovation process and move to higher Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), sustainability considerations become increasingly important. Sustainable design principles can be incorporated into technology, product, or process development to minimize environmental impacts, reduce energy consumption, promote circular economy practices, or enhance social equity.

TRLs provide a structured framework for evaluating the risks of implementing a particular technology or innovation. Considering sustainability factors in risk assessments helps identify potential environmental, social, or ethical risks and enables decision-makers to address them proactively.

Sustainability considerations can play a significant role in the adoption of innovations by the market. Consumers, companies, and regulatory bodies are increasingly demanding sustainable solutions. Innovations that positively impact on sustainability are more likely to gain market acceptance and contribute to the overall sustainability agenda.

Future research is suggested to analyze the impact of innovation public policies in countries in promoting various types of startups. These types may encompass BioTech, EnergyTech, FinTech, FoodTech, GreenTech, HealthTech, and RetailTech. A comprehensive analysis should consider implemented policies’ short-, medium-, and long-term effects.

Additionally, it would be beneficial to investigate the dynamics of network density in startup ecosystems emerging from these public policies. The main objective would be to understand how interactions among startups, investors, mentors, and other ecosystem participants can contribute to the growth and success of these companies. This promotes the continuous incorporation of sustainability aspects into products, systems, and services (PSS). Finally, the increasing development of advanced technologies has not necessarily led to companies being capable of using such technologies appropriately. In this context, digital innovation hubs (DIHs) [112] have been proposed to support companies regarding the latest digital technologies, including networking opportunities. Such an environment may be helpful to make it more efficient to assess and implement sustainability criteria in startups participating in DIHs.