Chapter 1

Facilitating Sustainable Innovation through Collaboration

Joseph Sarkis (Corresponding Author)

Graduate School of Management, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worcester MA 01610-1477
Email: jsarkis@[Link]

James J. Cordeiro
115B Hartwell Hall, Department of Business Administration and Economics, The College at
Brockport (SUNY), 350 New Campus Drive, Brockport, NY 14420, USA
Email: jcordeir@[Link]

Diego Alfonso Vazquez Brust

ESRC Centre for Business Relationships Accountability Sustainability and Society (BRASS), 55
Park Place
Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales, U.K. CF10 3AT.
VazquezD@[Link]

1.1 Defining sustainability, defining innovation

Considerations of facilitating sustainable innovation through collaboration must start by recognizing that
sustainability and innovation are flexible terms and that actors can interpret them in different ways,
leading to possible misunderstanding, conflict or misappropriation of terms for vested interests (Hajer,
1995). Since collaboration requires the use of dialogue and reasoned argumentation to foster mutual
understanding and this in turns requires trust and transparency in the use of terms (Habermas, 1996).
With this in mind, we provide some relevant definitions and contrasts below.

The terms ‘sustainability’ and ‘innovation’ are widely used by social coalitions promoting development.
However not everyone committed to sustainable development strives for it in the same way (Seyfang
and Smith, 2007). Apparent consensus on the promotion of sustainability and innovation often masks
significant differences on the meaning and implications that actors assign to these words (Hajer , 1995).

Sustainability is often associated with the Brundtland Report definition for Sustainable Development
‘following the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
own needs’ (WECD, 1987). Yet sustainable development is not the same as sustainability. According to
Dresner (2002) sustainability represents the goal of a ‘sustainable society’ a term used for the first time
in 1974 by the World Council of Churches to define a society where environmental, economic and social
concerns are integrated. Sustainability is thus an ideal equilibrium condition, while sustainable
development is a pathway from today’s unsustainable socio-technical systems towards such equilibrium.

1
It is necessary also to distinguish between weak and strong sustainability. Weak sustainability sees all
forms of capital as substitutes for one another (for example, substitution of technology for natural
capital) whereas strong sustainability reflects the stance that natural materials and services cannot be
duplicated or replaced by man-made capital.

While sustainability is about equilibrium and permanence, innovation is about changing the way things
are done. It is a form of learning to solve specific problems in a highly differentiated and volatile context
(Dicken, 2006), and implies uncertainty about effects. Innovation aimed at providing new technologies
as a solution to protect ecosystems can shift the use of resources and impact social and natural systems
in new and unexpected ways.

The scale of innovation is also relevant. Incremental innovations are small scale, progressive
refinements of existing products, processes or ideas that occur relatively continuously and often
unnoticed. On a larger scale, radical product-process innovations are unpredictable events that
drastically change existing products and processes. When there is a ‘cluster’ of such innovation, a
widespread shift in the socio-economic system can be triggered. Systems innovation is radical
innovation involving changes in technology that create entirely new sectors of the economy through a
combination of radical and incremental technological accompanied by organizational innovation
(Dicken, 2006). Finally, paradigm-shifting or disruptive innovation involves large scale, pervasive
changes in the techno-economic paradigm involving the mode of management and production (i.e., the
introduction of electric power) (Loorbach & Rotmans, 2006).

Are any of these types of innovation more conducive to sustainability? Perspectives differ; one view is
that incremental innovation in product and business practices, when accumulated over time can steer
economic activity onto a sustainable pathway. Adherents of this view also believe that this type of
innovation can be created through learning by doing and its consequences predicted to some extent
through forecasting and risk assessment. The socio-technical perspective, in contrast, argues that the
predictability of incremental innovation is its great weakness, since it permits development of political
and economic processes resisting necessary changes in production and consumption, regulation and
infrastructure (Hoogma et al, 2002), and therefore that only disruptive, unpredictable innovation can
change our unsustainable development patterns (Berkhout, 2002, Geels, 2002). These are still issues
that need addressing and research guidance in these areas will be valuable from an institutional
investment perspective.

Finally, we must recognize differences on the preferred path to sustainability. Narrow sustainability
follows a technological path focused on improving the environmental efficiency of production through
ongoing innovation and environmental management. Broad sustainability on the other hand, is based
on the view that technological innovation aimed at providing mere fixes to environmental and social
problems is not sustainable because artificially prolongs intrinsically unsustainable socio-economic
structures ( changing to sustain the status quo). Real sustainable innovation is seen as involving a change
in socio-economic structures and in our relationship with the natural environment (Dryzek, 2005). This
perspective views the world as a socio-biological system with resource and pollution flows between
poor and affluent regions of countries. The path to sustainability is seen as involving paradigm-shifting

2
innovation leading to the minimization of inequities and injustices through changes to existing political
and economic systems.

1.2 Innovation for sustainable enterprise

Many levels and dimensions of innovation need to be considered in the sustainability context. These
range from abstract and relatively intangible innovations related to institutional and policy development
to more tangible innovations related to durable product and technological innovation.

Incorporating innovation into a model of sustainable development is notably difficult (Newman, 2005).
Innovation for sustainability, whether it is incremental, radical, narrow or broad, will be complex and
multidimensional; a single organization is unlikely to have the resources to effectively innovate in this
arena. The process is socially and institutionally embedded with multiple actors -each of whom may
have a different perspective and interest- and which can occur at expanding levels of scale, each with
deeper, larger and more unpredictable consequences in the equilibrium of ecological and
socioeconomic systems (Rihani, 2000). Therefore, more interdisciplinary research and collaborative
efforts among organizations, their partners and their stakeholders is needed to better understand the
effects of innovation and create a more effective innovation environment.

Organization theorists writing on innovation have long recognized this need for collaborative
integration as the following quote demonstrates:

“Innovation is not the enterprise of a single entrepreneur. Instead, it is a network-building effort that
centers on the creation, adoption, and sustained implementation of a set of ideas among people who,
through transactions, become sufficiently committed to these ideas to transform them into ‘good
currency’.” (Ven De Ven, 1986; 601).

Within the technology and operations management fields too, it is recognized that for radical innovation
to occur, as in the case of sustainability innovation, a focus on collaboration is required (Clark and
Wheelwright, 1993). Collaborative efforts within the corporate (for-profit) sector may occur within
organizations, groups and teams that span functional and organizational boundaries such as supply
chain partnerships and strategic alliances with other corporate entities

Sustainability issues also range beyond the strategic or operational concerns for innovation by for-profit
organizations. Beyond the corporation and its partners (e.g., green supply chains (Sarkis, 2006)), various
external stakeholders need to be incorporated usefully into the innovation enterprise, including
government agencies, universities, non-governmental organizations, and even communities. Such a
multi-stakeholder group perspective is usefully represented by the acronym MAGPI (for Market,
Academia, Government, Public, and Industry). In this context, research and evaluation can occur from a
variety of perspectives, and collaboration can take various other forms – formal negotiations, voluntary
agreements, stakeholder dialogues, networking, green supply chains, multiple-partner projects,
information-sharing– and can vary extensively in terms of their size, membership, goals and actions
(Fadeeva, 2005). Poncelet (2001) reviews some of the benefits of such multi-stakeholder collaborations,
including more efficient resource utilization, speedier, more participative, and more creative solutions.
3
Collaborations for innovation can be reviewed from the perspective of various stakeholders:

The perspective of for-profit corporations. This perspective has been most central to the innovation
literature and management organization theory and is the most mature research stream within the still
developing field of sustainability innovation. Much of the innovation here may be considered
entrepreneurial in spirit with the ultimate goal of economic sustainability of the firms and their supply
chains. The triple bottom line is important in this context.

While corporations are driven by profit, other organizations and stakeholders may be driven by non-
economic factors depending on their stakeholder constituency. We consider three salient ones next.

The perspective of public policy makers. Policy-related practice and research focuses on institutional
aspects of the public-private linkage, incorporating a variety of perspectives related to budgeting,
planning, formation, execution and auditing of the public programs that support this type of linkage.
The degree to which a program’s designs are put into practice and the objectives achieved provide key
performance evaluation points. Public policy makers also determine the budgeting and controls for
helping guide sustainable innovation.

The perspective of a public R&D body or laboratory or university. The role of these organizations in the
sustainable development enterprise will range from basic to applied research development as these
organizations typically have the necessary scientists and research resources to drive innovation. They
are the repositories of old and new knowledge. Exploitative (applied) and exploratory (basic) research
are two of the primary resources that they offer to collaboration.

The perspective of the non governmental organization (NGO). Innovation is arguably a key capability of
successful NGOs (Fyvie & Ager, 1998) which tend to have a deep insight into community needs and local
factors. Such attributes can be better harnessed through partnerships with firms and governments
creating ‘new social compacts’ (Brugmann & Prahalad, 2007) to deliver socially and environmentally
responsible products/services and intervention that increases community empowerment and self-
reliance.

Ongoing theory development is vital for sustainable innovation, as is the development of supporting
methodologies, frameworks and tools that integrate stakeholder inputs into the collaborative
innovation process. In this respect, corporate social responsibility, sociological and policy frameworks
are valuable. Beyond standard diffusion of innovation and knowledge based collaborative efforts,
stakeholder, institutional, and ecological modernization theories may also explain collaborative efforts
for sustainability innovation. Institutional innovation in sustainability also includes learning (van der
Kerkhof and Wieczorek, 2005), adaptive management (Foxon, et al., 2009), and prevention (Johnson et
al., 2004) that is managed by the variety of stakeholders.

Our book seeks to touch on these many points of collaboration, sustainability and innovation. We now
introduce the book contents to help introduce the reader to the various topics covered and provide an
integrative perspective of the book.

4
1.3 Introduction to the Content of the Book

Since this is a multi-disciplinary topic with a variety of levels and dimensions to be examined, the book’s
content and organization could have been presented in numerous ways. Table 1 provides the various
concepts and issues examined by the authors that helped guide our categorization and organization.
Chapters are arranged in the order in which they appear in the book. Since we are focusing on a multi-
stakeholder perspective, we have also defined the major stakeholders involved in each chapter.
Another noteworthy characteristic is the use the multiple levels of analysis, notably geographic region
and organization/institutional characteristics (e.g. supply chains). Overall, the scope of coverage ranges
from broad and inclusive modes of collaboration (e.g. regional systems and triple helix – collaboration of
authorities, industry and universities) to those that are relatively specific (e.g., specific organizations).

Table 1 about here

Karlsson, Backman and Duppenstrom’s chapter, titled “Sustainable Considerations and Triple Helix
Cooperation in Regional Innovation Systems” reflects on the contribution -and limitations- of triple helix
approaches along with insights on the role of empowerment, open dialogue and investment thinking to
foster intelligent innovation. The chapter builds on the experience of the authors in four action-research
case studies on sustainability oriented collaboration between regional authorities, universities and
businesses in the Oresund region of Sweden and Denmark. In the analysis of the cases the authors use a
variety of metaphors to highlight the relations between factors influencing the success of sustainable
innovation processes. The entrepreneur delivering intelligent innovation, for instance, is presented as a
“driver” with a need for appropriate instruments, a steering wheel and an inspiring vision. The chapter
concludes that transformative learning and entrepreneurs’ engagement in radical renewal activities are
both required to move towards successful sustainable innovation, and suggests that open-minded triple-
helix collaboration can facilitate the mobilization of sufficient concerted “investments” in radical,
innovative sustainable development “experiments”.

The role of universities within various sustainability and innovation networks is still in its infancy. Using
two Danish sustainability innovation network case studies, Lehmann, Christensen & Johnson compare
and contrast the role of universities in their chapter titled “Partnerships and Sustainable Regional
Innovation Systems: Special Roles for Universities?”. They find that university partnership and
collaboration is dependent on a variety of ‘capital’ factors and issues. They also see the role as
contingent upon various political and institutional factors that help in its development. An important
finding is that these collaborative networks are evolving. One network, born as a triple-helix type
arrangement, is defined as Public-Private-Academic partnerships (PPAP). The other described the
academic role in the helix as a very low level functioning position and defined it as a Public-Private
partnership (P3) for this reason. Part of the explanation of these differing roles may be based on the
strategic positioning of the university within these two network studies. One had the university leading
the network; the other had the university playing a very peripheral role. Specific operational functions
and roles also provide some pertinent insights. The roles of the university in these sustainability
innovation partnerships range from the knowledge leader and basic research to technology transfer and
5
dissemination. The authors describe the cases and the results of their analysis within their Greening
Triangle collaborative framework which is useful in further understanding the roles of the academic
stakeholders in these collaborative networks as well as other stakeholders.

Socio-technical theory and systems are powerful explanatory tools to help understand how
collaboration at various levels and by various stakeholders can serve as barriers or enablers to success of
sustainable innovations. Using these theories Kamp, in her chapter titled “Obstacles to and Facilitators
of the Implementation of Small urban Wind Turbines in the Netherlands” shows how coordination
among multiple levels of the socio-technical system is required for success. Missing elements at any
level can doom the development or diffusion of these technologies. Using the case of urban wind
technology she goes through a multi-functional framework based on socio-technical systems theory, and
using the observations from these functions, Kamp identifies the barriers and enablers for this specific
innovative technology. Also, using the semantics of system dynamics modeling of vicious and virtuous
cycles she qualitatively describes the various elements that could prove useful for a quantitative system
dynamics tool. While qualitative, this chapter provides significant insight into how collaboration for
sustainable innovation can be quantitatively modeled.

Bugge, Hill, O’Gorman and Welter’s chapter “Regional Sustainability, Innovation and Welfare through
an Adaptive Process Model” introduces of a decision-making policy tool: The Adaptive Model CRIPREDE.
This tool - designed and applied in six countries as part of a major collaborative action-research project
funded by the European Union - facilitates and stimulates collaborative interaction leading to regional
learning, innovation, and transformation of networks contributing to a more sustainable future. As in
the Karlsson et al. and Hoffman & De Bruijn chapters, the theoretical foundations for this tool draw on
triple helix and entrepreneurship theories (in this case entrepreneurial ecosystems theory). These
concepts can be effectively combined with Triple-P principles as in Lehmann, Christensen & Johnson’ s
chapter. The authors first analyze the development of the Adaptive Model and its theoretical basis, then
focus on the results and policy implications of its highly interactive process of application in six very
different (in terms of political, cultural, economic features) regions across the EU: City Triangle in The
Netherlands; Cumbria in UK, Latgale in Latvia, Novo Mesto in Slovenia, Siegen-Wittgenstein in Germany,
and South East Ireland. The chapter emphasizes the overriding importance of engaging and empowering
regional stakeholders –’the drivers and owners of the regional developmental process’- in particular the
triple helix networks of industry, authorities, and universities. The authors conclude that finding the
right involvement of relevant stakeholders is a key challenge for the implementation of partnership-
based collaboration in sustainable regional development. They suggest that collaboration needs to be
pragmatic and at the same time have a strategic long-term perspective and framework. Stakeholders’
involvement should accordingly be tailor-made to match expectations and possibilities and based on
clearly identified responsibilities, added value, and synergy.

Policy and decision making tools for sustainability, especially with a broad variety of stakeholders are
very uncommon. Venselaar introduces a valuable decision tool, called FOCISS, for small and medium
sized enterprises in the chapter titled “FOCISS for an Effective Sustainable Innovation Strategy.” This
tool reflects the fact that while companies need to learn the various complexities of sustainability to
6
effectively develop, implement and improve upon sustainable innovations, small and medium sized
companies typically do not have the necessary capacities and knowledge to do this. A tool like FOCISS
helps them to evaluate and prioritize factors that will help companies focus in on the most sustainable
solution for internal innovations. The collaborative appeal of this tool is that it is general enough to
integrate various internal cross-functional stakeholders as well as external inter-organizational
stakeholders into the planning and decision making process. The tool is meant to simplify the
complexities, but certain critical steps are to be followed for success. Lessons learned from the
application of this tool to a number of case study companies provide insight into various pitfalls and
lessons.

In the chapter titled “Emergence of Sustainable Innovation: Key Factors and Regional Support
Structures”, Hoffman and De Bruijn use Regional Innovation systems theory to understand how
innovations evolve and what key explanatory factors contribute to the emergence and diffusion of
innovations in ten cases of Dutch firms with observed sustainable innovation processes to analyze. As is
the case in the chapters by Steketee and Karlsson and colleagues, the authors emphasize the
importance of radical, disruptive innovation for sustainable development. However, although the nature
of innovation processes is addressed, the focus of the chapter is on the analysis of the relations between
firms and the regional support structures that facilitated innovation processes, in particular on the study
of gaps between the needs identified within firms’ innovation processes and the type of functions
provided by support structures. The authors conclude that -especially for SMEs- demand articulation
remains a major barrier as users are often only involved when the innovation is ready to enter the
market, while regional support functions in this respect are deficient. Moreover, SMEs have major
difficulty interpreting and anticipating sustainability policies and regulations at local and national levels,
leading to innovations that face major regulatory barriers or are unable to cope with policy changes. The
chapter proposes that some functions in the current support structure could more effectively build
regional support systems. These functions include stimulation of demand articulation and vision
development, supply of strategic intelligence that SMEs cannot obtain in house, and provision of
interfaces between policy and business that allow firms to better cope with policy uncertainty and to
anticipate policy developments.

In the chapter “Disruption or Sustenance? An Institutional Analysis of the Sustainable Business Network
in West Michigan”, Steketee focuses on the analysis of types of innovation network structures and
institutional arrangements contributing towards sustainability. The author uses Institutional Analysis
Design ( IAD) to study the contribution of ‘game changing’ disruptive innovation and ‘market-deepening’
sustaining innovation to the sustainable development of West Michigan, a region which appears to be
successfully avoiding the downward spiral of other regions in the Great Lakes by replacing its “rust belt”
with a “green” belt. The author attributes such success to the existence of a West Michigan “network of
networks” dedicated to sustainable business. This network of networks is open to learning and transfer
of knowledge but does not follow the conventional model of leadership, where a vision has been
developed, a strategy designed and a team assembled to implement the strategy. On the contrary this is
a system of overlapping networks and leaders that emerged to respond to the increasing pace of change

7
and the disruptive circumstances which present themselves as a result of that change. The case study
further supports two related hypotheses. First, business-led disruptive innovation, rather than
sustaining innovation, is more effective in fostering transformative, sustainable regional development.
Second, institutional arrangements supporting collaboration through networks are central to regional
success in this transformation as individual firms’ competency in innovation leverages sustainability as
an organizing logic for regional development.

O’ Rafferty and O’Connor’s chapter, “Regional Perspectives on Capacity Building for Ecodesign – Insights
from Wales,” also uses systems’ theory, in this case combined with a capacity building framework, to
identify enablers and blockers for the diffusion of a specific technology, analyzing four case studies of
SMES that participated on a recent regional eco-design initiative in Wales. The cases are used as a
means to explore strategies for public intervention to foster sustainable innovation and regional
development in Wales through eco-design. The chapter addresses themes underrepresented in both the
innovation literature and sustainable development literature such as the role of design as an innovative
process, a collaborative process and a business strategy, and –in particular- eco-design’s capability to
support sustainable regional development. The chapter stands out from others in this book in terms of
its focus on incremental innovation. In contrast to Steketee or Hoffman and De Bruijn, O’ Rafferty and
O’Connor argue that the cumulative impact of incremental innovations on long term economic
development and social change can be equal or greater than radical innovations. Regarding theoretical
foundations, the authors support public intervention as a response to a regional systems’ failure to
deliver sustainable innovation. The chapter shows similarities with others in this book when it identifies
some of the determinants of successful collaborations : a new dialogue on the structure and content of
public interventions (Karlsson et al), a history of previous collaboration or trust (Franco-Garcia and
Bressers), open-minded collaboration and reciprocal learning (Karlsson et al.), regional authorities
support in developing an infrastructure for linkages and co-operation between actors and agents
(Hoffman and DeBruijn; Steketee) and the use of flexible and evolving intervention models (Brugge et
al.).

Simmons, Bushell, and Scott in “Fostering Responsible Tourism Business Practices through Collaborative
Capacity Building,” report on government-stakeholder collaboration by focusing on two collaborative
research and development projects in Australia. Both projects were funded by the New South Wales
State Government and built on partnerships that were established between university researchers at
the University of Western Sydney and local government bodies (similar to Lehmann et al.’s case studies).
Specifically, the authors report on two cases of sustainability learning programs tested in the private the
public sectors based on a tiered system of engagement, process, and performance. The programs -- the
Gumnut Awards Environmental Management Program for the Caravan and Camping Industry
Association of New South Wales and the Sea Change for Sustainable Tourism program in Manly Beach, a
residential Sydney suburb -- targeted sustainability advances using social and environmental tools, and
exemplified the potential for effective social change processes resulting from government collaboration
with other relevant stakeholders. Using surveys and supporting thematic data analyses, the authors
provide a rich account of the benchmarks, successes, barriers and limitations of each project and review

8
the processes and partnership efforts involved, including, importantly, future challenges perceived by
respondents, and methods utilized for removing barriers and resistance to participation in the programs.

The study has some noteworthy aspects. As Hoffman and De Bruijn noted in an earlier chapter, the
focus on SMEs is welcome, as SMEs are an important focal constituency. They typically lack incentives,
information and resources (especially time and personnel) to go beyond compliance with mandated
environmental regulation and thus stakeholder collaboration initiatives to enhance their sustainability
efforts are especially warranted. The Australian setting of the cases is also interesting from the
sustainability viewpoint given the country’s low population density. Most importantly, the resulting
rates of environmental management system (EMS) adoption by the SMEs in the two programs were
much higher (18-50%) than the Australian national rates of EMS adoption (6-7%). These results provide
both reasons for optimism as well as many valuable insights that should help similar stakeholder
collaborations in the future.

The chapter, “Backcasting Using Principles for Implementing Cradle-to-Cradle” by van der Plujim, Miller
and Cuginotti provides an insightful look into a novel technique for implementing the cradle-to-cradle
concept which is gaining momentum in Western Europe and has established footholds in Japan and the
U.S., and particularly in the Netherlands. The cradle to cradle concept seeks to learn from nature and to
design using principles that emphasize the conversion of waste into food, the use of solar energy inputs,
and the celebration of diversity. As such, it facilitates organizational transition towards enabling a
societal infrastructure by participating in cyclical supply chains – a valuable complement to the green
supply chain approach to organizational collaboration for sustainability.

The specific contribution of van der Plujim, Miller and Cuginotti to the cradle-to-cradle literature focuses
on the integration of cradle-to-cradle design within a systems approach that permits analysis from a
strategic sustainable development perspective. After usefully comparing cradle-to-cradle design
principles with FSSD principles for sustainability, the authors integrate science-based principles with
value-based principles as an asset to support backcasting using overarching sustainability constraints
drawn from scientific principles for socio-economic sustainability. This framework is one that decision-
makers can use flexibly to make mid-course corrections in the march towards a societal infrastructure
that supports a targeted system in which all material flows are either part of a biological or a technical
metabolism. This approach is noteworthy in that society is brought into the sustainable enterprise as a
collaborative stakeholder alongside entrepreneurs and community builders, facilitating progress along
the front of ecological modernization.

Arnold’s study, “Corporate Strategies for Sustainable Innovations,” utilizes a case analysis of three
companies to examine the implications of organizational, cultural, and external structural conditions for
active corporate sustainability programs. The organizational factors include flexibility and active
searching routines and knowledge transfer and the variety of corporate capabilities and pattern of
action, the cultural factors include management’s sustainable values, vision and norms and corporate
entrepreneurship, while the external factors include market demands, competition, state regulation as
well as stakeholder demands. These factors are used to predict the timing and intensity of strategic
9
change from an environmental perspective within the organizations studied. The three companies
studied are noteworthy for the different foci of their sustainability efforts. Novamont focused on
circular flows for recycling in the local economy, Bedminster, the recycling company focused on zero
emission, while the Dutch company Phillips uses life cycle analysis integrated with the Eco Vision
program.

Based on semi-structured personal and phone interviews (supplemented by written follow-up surveys)
Arnold utilized content analysis to code and interpret data from multiple individual cases using the
analytical framework of organizational, cultural and external factors described above and examined
cross-company patterns. Importantly, the focus was not just on the present, but also on past decisions
and patterns of action as well as future visions and planned actions. Her results provide valuable
insights into corporate environmental strategic change processes and actions.

The focus of Lin and Darnall’s chapter, “A New Typology of Strategic Alliances and its Strategic
Implications,” which is complemented by Arnold’s study on corporate environmental programs, argues
that notion of partnerships as a theme to sustainability is hardly new (see, for example, early work in the
GIN context by Hartman et al 1999). Lin and Darnall take an important step towards redressing an
important omission in the literature on alliances for sustainability. Integrating two theoretical
perspectives from organization theory – institutional theory and the resource-based view of the firm –
they assess firms’ decisions to participate in strategic alliances that advance proactive corporate
environmental strategies. Lin and Darnall examine and develop the logic of how the corporate quest for
competency-building and legitimacy motivates the choice for corresponding competency-oriented or
legitimacy-oriented alliances, which in turn lead to various environmental strategies on a spectrum
ranging from reactive strategies (such as pollution control) to proactive strategies (such as the quest for
clean technology). The authors develop two propositions for future research: competency-oriented
alliances will tend to associate with more proactive environmental strategies while legitimacy-oriented
alliances will tend to associate with less proactive environmental strategies. This chapter contributes to
the strategic alliance literature by developing a useful framework to assess alliance formation in the
environmental management context. To our knowledge, this is the first such work in this area and
represents a welcome advance. In addition to providing corporate environmental researchers with two
interesting and testable hypotheses, the chapter provides readers who are new to this area access to
useful, state-of-the art reviews of the typology of corporate reactive and proactive environmental
strategies (ranging from pollution control to pollution prevention to product stewardship to clean
technology), and, discussion of the relevance of the institutional theory and resource-based perspectives
for understanding these strategies.

Finally, Franco-Garcia and Bressers’s chapter, “Towards Sustainability by Negotiated Agreements

Between Industrial Sectors and Government – Mexican Case,” focuses on a developing country, one of
the few in our book, and discusses the extent to which a policy-tool that had been developed for a
specific European context can be transferred to the ostensibly different Latin-American environment.
Specifically, Franco-Garcia and Bressers evaluate the extent to which Dutch experiences with negotiated
agreements between firms and public authorities could be used as a tool to improve environmental
10
policies and foster collaboration and innovation for sustainability in Mexico. The authors analyze the
Mexican context both in terms of perceived effectiveness of environmental regulation/existing voluntary
agreements and in terms of attitudes and opinions of key players in the Mexican Industry regarding
feasibility of negotiated agreements. Their findings show that there is good receptivity to the use of
negotiated agreements both from the point of view of policy makers and industry leaders. The
comparison with Dutch experiences shows no important gap between Mexican business leaders’
expectations regarding results in terms of efficiency gains and positive side effects and the results
obtained by negotiated agreements in the Netherlands. Mexico benefits from a history of trust and fair
play between the industrial sector and the government; homogeneity or clear leadership in polluting
industrial sectors. Polluting firms are also concerned with their public Image and there is a widespread
belief that the government will resort to other measures if negotiation fails. All the latter factors, which
were determinant of success in The Netherlands support the feasibility of using negotiated agreements
as a collaborative strategy towards sustainability in Mexico.

1.4 Concluding overview and suggestions for future research directions

Readers will appreciate the variety of methodological approaches taken by the authors. They include
theoretical conceptualizations, practical and focused case studies, as well as broader empirical
evaluations, and the theoretical or framework developments utilized derive from the organizational
theory, policy studies, environmental research, research policy, and systems engineering disciplines.
This characteristic further exemplifies the interdisciplinary research needed for both sustainability and
innovation. The richness and diversity of approaches provides some critical and novel insights into
collaboration for sustainability innovation that we hope will have an important place on the road map to
global sustainable development.

While sustainable innovation is a key driver of sustainable enterprise, we must guard against being too
sanguine about its potential. Fadeeva (2005), for example, shows that collaboration frequently falls
short of expectations, and that the achievement of satisfactory results depends on a number of factors
that might well be overlooked by collaborating partners. Future research needs to continue to explore
these factors, and to focus especially on consensus-building techniques. Sustainable innovation
research would also benefit from the incorporation of new techniques, such as, for example, that
exemplified in recent work drawing on the insights of game theory (Lozano, 2007).

Future research would also benefit greatly from careful integration with the broader literature on
management innovation. A useful and up to date review of this literature is provided by Birkinshaw, et al
(2008) who develop an innovation process framework built around successive stages of motivation,
invention, implementation, theorization and labeling. The management innovation literature, while
focused principally on for-profit organizations, also has important implications for non-profits and other
stakeholders in the sustainable development enterprise, especially in a postcorporate world (Limerick et
al 2002). In addition to the management theoretical perspectives represented in this volume, recent
contributions from relatively new areas from organizational economics in a sustainability context such as
corporate governance themes derived from agency theory might prove to be quite valuable, for

11
example recent work on the incentives provided to top managers for advancing sustainable goals
(Cordeiro and Sarkis, 2008).

To achieve a better understanding of alternative pathways to sustainability and innovation dynamics,

sustainable innovation research might also benefit from exploring interdisciplinary theoretical
frameworks drawing on new approaches to sustainability and innovation developed in the social and
political sciences, in particular transition theory literature (Geels, 2002). 1 An example is the ‘Pathways
to Sustainability’ framework (Leach et al, 2007) which builds on theories of complexity, deliberative
democracy, resilience, path-dependency, non-linear dynamics and uncertainty 2 with a view to
understanding the links between ecological sustainability and technology and poverty reduction and
social justice. This framework sees the world as a complex array of constantly changing interactions
between ecological, social, political and technological processes and actors. While collaboration and
innovation are the heart of the pathways to sustainability, it is not always the case that collaboration
leads to success. In order to foster sustainable innovation, collaboration has to be reflexive and dynamic,
a constant process of identification of, and adaptation to change through renegotiation of solidarities
and interdependences (Scoones et al, 2007, Leach et al, 2007).

A significant limitation of this volume is its almost exclusive focus on the developed world. Research on
Innovation in grassroots movements highlights that the five billion people living in developing countries
are salient sources and beneficiaries of innovation (Seyfang & Smith, 2007, Pathak 2008), challenging the
dominant top-down, North-South approach for innovation dissemination. There are valuable
opportunities for reverse knowledge transfer of innovation generated in developing countries for
example, that must be studied more closely. Initiatives such as the Honeybees network, originated in
India and now spreading to 75 countries (Gupta et al, 2003) or the Fab Labs initiative supported by MIT
have resulted in highly successful local innovations in areas as diverse as bio-security and digital
technology. Collaboration between universities, firms, authorities and grassroots movements from both
developed and developing countries may be a pathway to innovative and sustainable solutions to local
challenges while simultaneously redressing distributive injustices. Thus, collaboration on sustainable
innovation should not only encompass regions within nations, but should also be sought with
collaboration across nations. The development and transfer of this knowledge can occur in both
directions and should be encouraged as such.

There is ample theoretical foundation for the development and evaluation of sustainability and
innovation from the technology and innovation, institutional policy, and sustainable development
literatures. Fruitful investigation of key innovation relationships and processes requires a multi-
disciplinary and multi-stakeholder perspective. Despite the valuable contributions captured in this
book’s chapters, we still have a long way to go in this field.

1
Transition theory literature emphasizes the interdependency of institutions and infrastructures defining societal systems and
sub-systems, thus creating different types of lock-in that stymie innovation (path dependencies for technological and social
developments such as, existing competencies, past investment, habits ,regulation, social norms, dominant discourses). In
particular, Transition theory argues that the stability and cohesion of societal systems is created and maintained through
institutional regimes (sets of practices, rules, norms and shared assumptions that focus on system optimisation rather than
system innovation (Geels, 2002, Loorbach and Rootmans, 2006)
2
The Pathways to Sustainability framework sees sustainability as a property of non-equilibrium systems allowing the
maintenance of basic systems survival functions: equity, wellbeing and environmental quality during dynamics transitions from
one equilibrium state to another.
12
Acknowledgements

The role of the Greening of Industry Network

This book itself stands as an example of a multi-stakeholder collaborative project for the diffusion of
innovations related to sustainability. The concept and raw material for this book evolved from a 2008
conference sponsored by the Greening of Industry Network (GIN) in the Netherlands.

Kurt Fischer and Johan Schot began the work of organizing the Greening of Industry Network in 1989,
before its official launch at the first GIN conference in November 1991. Thus this book arrives at the
twentieth anniversary of the conceptualization of GIN. GIN is one of the oldest inter-disciplinary and
cross-institutional (multi-stakeholder) organizations focusing on the greening and sustainability of
organizations. GIN is a prime example of collaboration and innovation for sustainability. Its website
([Link] defines the organization as “an international network of
professionals from research, education, business, civil society organizations, and government, focusing
on issues of industrial development, environment, and society, and dedicated to building a sustainable
future.” Its mission statement reads “The Greening of Industry Network develops knowledge and
transforms practice to accelerate progress toward a sustainable society.”

GIN is managed today by an international group of coordinators including Kurt Fischer of The George
Perkins Marsh Research Institute at Clark University, Theo de Bruijn of the Center for Clean Technology
and Environmental Policy (CTSTM) at the University of Twente, and Somporn Kamolsiripichaiporn from
Chulalongkorn University. Over the years GIN’s conferences have been held on different continents to
accommodate the hundreds of members of the network around the world. The GIN is a vital presence
in the global sustainability discourse.

This book is comprised primarily of select papers from the GIN conference held on June 26-28 in
Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. The main theme of the conference was “Facilitating Sustainable
Innovations Sustainable Innovation as a Tool for Regional Development Innovation”. Thus, a broad
focus on sustainability, technology, sustainable development, and policy guides the contents of this
book. Even though regional development was the topic, many levels of analysis were represented, and
the conference provided an excellent opportunity for knowledge transfer, a critical element of
collaborative innovation to occur. Only the best papers that fit within the topical objectives of the book
were included.

Our thanks goes not only to the coordinators of GIN, but also to Springer Publishers for their confidence
and support for this project. Special thanks go to Fritz Schmuhl and Takeesha Moerland-Torpey for their
important role in helping us bring this project to successful completion. Finally, of course, without the
fine work of the contributors, this book will not be possible. We hope readers will find the chapters
useful and insightful.

13
1.5 References

Berkhout, F. (2002) “Technological regimes, path dependency and the environment”, Global
Environmental Change, 12, 1-4

Birkinshaw, J., Hamel, G., and Mol, M.J. (2008) “Management innovation” Academy of
Management Review, 35 (4), 825-845.

Brugmann, J. and Prahalad, C.K. (2007) “Co-creating business's new social compact”, Harvard Business
Review, 85, 80-90.

Clark, K. B. and S. C. Wheelwright (1993), Managing New Product and Process Development.
New York, NY: The Free Press.

Cordeiro, J. J., and Sarkis, J. (2008). “Does explicit contracting effectively link CEO compensation
to environmental performance?” Business Strategy and the Environment, 17(5), 304-317.

Dicken, P. (2006) Global Shift: Reshaping The Global Economic Map In The 21st Century,
London: Routledge

Dresner S. (2002) the Principles of Sustainability (Earthscan, London)

Dryzek J. (2005) The Politics of the Earth, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fadeeva, Z. (2005). “Promise of sustainability collaboration – potential fulfilled?” Journal of

Cleaner Production, 13(2), 165-174.
Fyvie, C. and Ager, A. (1999) “NGOs and Innovation: Organizational Characteristics and
Constraints in Development Assistance Work in The Gambia”, World Development, 27, 1383-
1395

Foxon, T. J., Reed, M. S., and Stringer, L. C. (2009), “Governing long-term social-ecological
change: what can the adaptive management and transition management approaches learn
from each other?” Environmental Policy and Governance, 19, 1, 3-20

Geels, F. W. (2005) Technological Transitions and System Innovation: A Coevolutionary and

Socio-Technical Analysis, Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Gupta, A. K., Sinha, R. and Koradia, D. (2003). “Mobilizing grassroots' technological innovations
and traditional knowledge, values and institutions: articulating social and ethical capital”.
Futures,35, 975-987.

Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and
democracy. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
14
Hajer, M. (1995) The Politics of Environmental Discourse: modernization and the Policy Process,
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hartman, C. L., Hofman, P. S., and Stafford, E. R. (1999). “Partnerships: a path to sustainability”,
Business Strategy and the Environment, 8(5), 255-266.

Hoogma R., Kemp, R., Schot, J. and Truffer, B. (2002) Experimenting for Sustainable Transport:
the approach of strategic niche management, New York : Routledge

Johnson, K., Hays, C., Center, H., and Daley, C. (2004). “Building capacity and sustainable
prevention innovations: A sustainability planning model”. Evaluation and Program Planning, 27,
135-149.
Clark, K. B. and Wheelwright, S. C. (1993), Managing New Product and Process Development.
New York, NY: The Free Press.

Leach, M., Bloom, G., Ely, A., Nightingale, P., Scoones, I., Sha, E. and Smith, A. (2007)
Understanding Governance: pathways to sustainability, STEPS Working Paper 2, Brighton: STEPS
Centre

Limerick, D., Cunnington, B., and Crowther, F. (2002). Managing the New Organization:
Collaboration and Sustainability in the Postcorporate world, Allen and Unwin.

Loorbach, D. and Rotmans, J. (2006) "Managing transitions for sustainable development". In

Olshoorn, X. and Wieczorek, A. J. (Eds.) Understanding Industrial Transformation: views from
different disciplines Dordrecht: Springer.

Lozano, R. (2007). “Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability”, Sustainable Development,

15(6), 370-381.

Newman, L. (2005) “Uncertainty, innovation, and dynamic sustainable development”.

Sustainability: Science, Practice, & Policy 1(2):25–31

Pathak, R. (2008) “Grass-root creativity, innovation, entrepreneurialism and poverty reduction”,

International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation Management, 8, 87-98

Poncelet, E. C. (2001). “A kiss here and a kiss there”: Conflict and collaboration in
environmental partnerships. Environmental Management, 27(1), 13-25.

Rihani, S. (2002) Complex Systems: Theory and Development Practice. London : Zed Books

Sarkis, J. (ed.) (2006), Greening the Supply Chain, Springer, Berlin.

15
Scoones, I., Leach, M., Smith, A. , Stagl, S., Stirling, A. and Thopson, J. (2007) Dynamics Systems
and the Challenge of Sustainability, STEPS Working Paper 1, Brighton: STEPS Centre

Seyfang, G. and Smith, A. (2007) “Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: Towards
a new research and policy agenda”, Environmental Politics, 16, 4,584 — 603.

van de Kerkhof, M., and Wieczorek, A. (2005). “Learning and stakeholder participation in
transition processes towards sustainability: methodological considerations”. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 72, 733–747.

Ven De Ven, A. H. (1986), “Central Problems in the Management of Innovation,” Management

Science, 32, 590-607.

WCED (1987) Our Common Future, The World Commission on Environment and Development,
New York: Oxford University Press,

16
Chapter Title Stakeholder Scope Methodology Theoretical
Focus Perspective
Sustainable Considerations and Industry, Academia Regional Case Studies Triple Helix
Triple Helix Cooperation in and Government Investment thinking
Regional Innovation Systems
Partnerships and Sustainable Academia and Regional Conceptual Expanding
Regional Innovation Systems: Industry Partnerships to
Special Roles for Universities? Triple Helix
Obstacles to and facilitators of the Industry, Regional and Local Conceptual Socio-technical
implementation of small urban Government, Theory
wind turbines in the Netherlands Academia
Regional Sustainability, Government Regional Empirical Systems Theory
Innovation and Welfare through Adaptation
an Adaptive Process Model Triple Helix
FOCISS for an Effective Industry, Organizational and Case Studies Innovation
Sustainable Innovation Strategy Government and Supply Chain Prioritization
Academia
Emergence of Sustainable Government and Regional Conceptual Systems theory
Innovation: Key Factors and Industry Multi-level
Regional Support Structures Innovation
Disruption or Sustenance? An Government and Local Empirical Institutional
Institutional Analysis of the Industry Analysis
Sustainable Business Network in
West Michigan
Regional perspectives on capacity Industry and Public Regional and supply Case Studies Systems Theory
building for ecodesign – insights chain (System Failure)
from Wales
Fostering Responsible Tourism Government and Local and Regional Case Studies Engagement and
Business Practices through Industry Capacity Building
Collaborative Capacity Building
Design and Decision-Making: Industry Supply chain Conceptual Cradle-to-Cradle
Backcasting using Principles for Life Cycle
Cradle-to-Cradle Innovation
Corporate Strategies for Industry Supply chain Case Studies Strategic change
Sustainable Innovation and Sustainability
A New Typology of Strategic Industry and Public Global/National Conceptual Institutional Theory
Alliances and its Strategic (NGOs) Resource Based
Implications View
Towards Sustainability by Industry and Regional/National Empirical Voluntary
Negotiated Agreements Between Government Mechanisms;
Industrial Sectors and Negotiated
Government – Mexican Case Agreements
Table 1.1: Overview and content of chapters.