Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4 (2018) 226–233

Journal of Innovation
& Knowledge
https://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-innovation-and-knowledge

Empirical paper

Open innovation and its effects on economic and sustainability

innovation performance
Romana Rauter a,∗ , Dietfried Globocnik b , Elke Perl-Vorbach c , Rupert J. Baumgartner d
a
Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/1, A-8010 Graz, Austria
b
Department of Innovation Management and Entrepreneurship, Alpen-Adria-Universität Klagenfurt, Universitaetsstrasse 65-67, A-9020 Klagenfurt, Austria
c
Research & Technology House, Graz University of Technology, Mandellstrasse 9/II, A-8010 Graz, Austria
d
Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research, University of Graz, Merangasse 18/1, A-8010 Graz, Austria

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The increasing complexity of products and services, rapidly changing market demands, or growing pres-
Received 8 March 2018 sure from various societal groups are trends that require companies to enact new practices to remain
Accepted 25 March 2018 competitive. The external search for information and its integration in the context of open innovation
Available online 12 April 2018
is one practice that can lead to increased success. However, the full range of potential open innova-
tion partners has not yet been sufficiently explored, and their effects on innovation performance remain
JEL classification: unclear. In this research, we investigated the roles different open innovation partners played in improv-
O31
ing economic innovation performance and sustainability innovation performance. Furthermore, we asked
Keywords: whether striving to meet economic and sustainability innovation goals represents a conflict. Drawing on
Open innovation a cross-sectional sample of industrial firms and applying a benchmark approach to identify the rele-
Sustainability innovation performance vant performance drivers, we found that, in addition to well-known partners such as universities and
Economic innovation performance customers, increased collaboration with NGOs and intermediaries is beneficial for firms. Moreover, eco-
Benchmark nomic innovation performance positively correlates with sustainability innovation performance. This
implies that economic and sustainability innovation goals can be reached simultaneously. Thereby,
this paper contributes to the open innovation literature by revealing which collaboration partners fit
best to strengthen innovation performance, and by clarifying the relationship between economic and
sustainability innovation performance.
© 2018 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access
article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Introduction very promising, others raise criticism with respect to its conceptual
ambiguity (Dahlander & Gann, 2010), lack of clarification regarding
The increasing complexity of products and services, shorter the parties primarily involved in such processes (Huizingh, 2011),
life cycles, and rapidly changing market demands require new and the collaboration partners’ influence on the company’s inno-
or different capabilities and management practices to success- vation performance (Brettel & Cleven, 2011; Stefan & Bengtsson,
fully develop innovations and sustain a company’s competitive 2017). Potential disadvantages of open innovation include loss
advantage. These capabilities include what is called ‘organizational of control, increased managerial and organizational complexity,
intelligence’ enabling the company to learn from and about its envi- and, consequently, increased costs (Manzini, Lazzarotti & Pellegrini,
ronment (Lawson & Samson, 2001). The important role of the search 2017). Despite the existence of various forms of open innova-
for and integration of external knowledge in a corporate’s innova- tion approaches, we know little about how companies innovate
tion success has been widely acknowledged (Stefan & Bengtsson, in external collaborations, benefit from their innovations (Stefan
2017). Elmquist, Fredberg and Ollila (2009), Gianiodis, Ellis and Sec- & Bengtsson, 2017), and with whom and for what reasons they
chi (2010), Huizingh (2011), and Giannopoulou, Yström and Ollila cooperate with outside partners (Huizingh, 2011). In particular, this
(2011), amongst others, have provided overviews. Whereas some applies in the context of sustainability innovations (Hossain, 2010;
authors consider the concept of open innovation (Chesbrough, Mustaquim & Nyström, 2014) referring to the need to re-think and
2003; Chesbrough, 2012; Gassmann, Enkel & Chesbrough, 2010) re-design products, processes, and services to meet the require-
ments of Sustainable Development, which are being demanded
by different groups, such as customers, NGOs, and governments
∗ Corresponding author. (Ketata, Sofka & Grimpe, 2015; Tsai & Liao, 2017).
E-mail address: romana.rauter@uni-graz.at (R. Rauter).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2018.03.004
2444-569X/© 2018 Journal of Innovation & Knowledge. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4 (2018) 226–233 227

Thus, this research investigates the relevance of external part- empirical research has demonstrated positive correlations between
ners for achieving economic innovation performance (EIP) as well collaborations with customers, universities and suppliers, and new
as sustainability innovation performance (SIP). By including a product development performance (e.g., Brettel & Cleven, 2011;
broader set of external stakeholders qualifying as potential open Inauen & Schenker-Wicki, 2011). Stefan and Bengtsson (2017)
innovation partners than past research, managers get to know investigated the effects of appropriability mechanisms and open-
with whom they should strengthen their cooperation to achieve ness depth on two types of innovation performance (efficiency,
higher EIP and SIP. Furthermore, the paper explores the relationship novelty) across different stages of the innovation process with eight
between EIP and SIP to clarify for managers whether both per- different partners. Their findings show that universities, intermedi-
formance dimensions can be pursued simultaneously or trigger a aries, customers, suppliers, and competitors seem to be beneficial
trade-off. Empirical evidence for the proposed relationships is pro- for achieving performance, depending on the different phases of
vided by drawing on empirical field survey data of a cross-sectional an innovation process. Despite the potential risks associated with
sample and applying a benchmarking approach. open innovation, we propose that firms reporting higher EIP are
also engaged in more collaboration activities with external stake-
holders. Besides the dominating set of open innovation partners
Theoretical foundation and hypotheses
(customers, suppliers, competitors, universities, experts) investi-
gated in past research (e.g., Brettel & Cleven, 2011; Chesbrough,
Innovation performance
2003), we draw on the stakeholder approach (Freeman, 1984;
Gould, 2012) to identify further potential collaboration partners
Innovation has been commonly defined as the successful appli-
in the firm’s eco-system (intermediaries, NGOs, communes, public
cation of new ideas resulting from organizational processes in
institutions) and suggest a positive economic performance impact
which different resources are combined (Dodgson, Gann & Phillips,
resulting from their integration into the firm’s innovation activities.
2014). This combination of various resources is a multi-stage pro-
cess leading to improved or new products, services, or processes Hypothesis 1. Higher economic innovation performance is asso-
with which firms seek to differentiate themselves on the mar- ciated with a higher collaboration intensity with external partners.
ket (Baregheh, Rowley & Sambrook, 2009). In the context of open
innovation, this multi-stage process includes collaboration with
Open innovation and sustainability innovation performance
external partners (Chesbrough, 2003; Gassmann et al., 2010) rep-
resenting sources of knowledge that can contribute to corporate
Collaboration with external partners seems to be particularly
innovation projects. Ultimately, such collaborations make sense
important with reference to social, organizational, and ethical
if they pay off and act as drivers for corporate innovation per-
issues in the context of innovation (Arnold, 2011; Medeiros, Ribeiro
formance. Traditionally, a strong focus has been placed on the
& Cortimiglia, 2014; Hossain, 2010). High levels of external integra-
economic performance dimension of innovation activities to eval-
tion of customers, suppliers, and research institutions, among oth-
uate success, measured in terms of revenue and margin growth,
ers, are the most important competences enabling firms to execute
market share, or customer satisfaction (Adams, Bessant & Phelps,
sustainability innovations (Carrillo-Hermosilla, del Río & Könnölä,
2006; Griffin & Page, 1993; Manion & Cherion, 2009). However,
2010; de Medeiros et al., 2014; Lee & Kim, 2011; Lozano, 2007),
the impact of innovation activities on the innovation program’s
while partners such as local communes, intermediaries, and NPOs
economic success fails to account for other performance aspects
can also help to improve the market acceptance of innovation out-
such as reductions in environmental pollution or resource effi-
comes (Achterkamp & Vos, 2006; Holmes & Smart, 2009; Niinimäki
ciency although these sustainability aspects are becoming more
& Hassi, 2011). In addition to the already well-known collaboration
and more important due to the given, increasing demands for
partners, such as universities or customers, sustainability innova-
sustainable products and changing legal requirements. Such sus-
tions might particularly require different expertise and input and
tainability innovations are defined as the creation of products,
call for wider societal acceptance. Therefore, it is also reasonable
services, and processes resulting – from a full life-cycle perspective
to consider further partners coming from a company’s ecosystem.
– in less negative environmental and/or increased social impact
Based on prior open innovation research (Brettel & Cleven, 2011;
compared to relevant alternatives and consider the needs of future
Chesbrough, 2003) and the stakeholder approach (Freeman, 1984),
generations (Hall & Vredenburg, 2003; Kemp & Pearson, 2007).
an extended list of groups including customers, suppliers, com-
Therefore, the assessment of innovation performance also has to
petitors, experts, universities, intermediaries, communes, public
capture environmental and social domains of innovative outcomes.
institutions, and NGOs qualify as potential collaboration partners
Drawing on prior literature (Ketata et al., 2015; Schöggl, Baumgart-
to achieve SIP. However, the relevance of additional collabora-
ner & Hofer, 2014), we conceptualize SIP as the outcome of the
tion partners to SIP has not yet been fully addressed (Hossain,
firm’s innovation activities with respect to (a) sustainable product
2010; Mustaquim & Nyström, 2014). Apart from the strategic deci-
design (e.g., low-impact material, life-cycle optimization), (b) pro-
sion to pro-actively search for innovation partners or collaborate
cess efficiency (e.g., reduction of resource input and deployment),
with them in response to increasing pressures, it is not at all clear
(c) environmental pollution (e.g., reduction of pollution, waste, and
whether such collaborations pay off or if the role of innovations in
resource deployment), and (d) social responsibility (e.g., improved
fostering greater levels of sustainability is crucial (Crossan & Apay-
health, safety, social, and ethical situations).
din, 2010; Dangelico & Pujari, 2010; Horn & Brem, 2013; Snider, Hill
& Martin, 2003). While many companies might have gained expe-
Open innovation and economic innovation performance rience with the open innovation process, managing sustainability
innovations might represent a new, but different, challenge. Past
In general, it has been assumed that open innovation activities research reports that collaboration with external partners is ben-
with a diverse range of collaboration partners positively influ- eficial in terms of sustainability product and service innovations
ence a company’s innovation success (Chesbrough, 2003), because (Arnold, 2017), but the necessary financial and time investments as
firms are limited in their possibilities to internalize all required well as the risks of unbalanced innovation portfolios need to be con-
knowledge and competencies (Michelino, Caputo, Cammarano & sidered. We propose that those firms that intensively manage open
Lamberti, 2014). In particular, the use of external knowledge helps innovation with multiple partners benefit from the collaborations
to sustain a firm’s competitiveness (Brettel & Cleven, 2011). Past in terms of achieving higher SIP at the program level.
228 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4 (2018) 226–233

Hypothesis 2. Higher sustainability innovation performance is Table 1

Sample characteristics.
associated with a higher collaboration intensity with external part-
ners. Industry Percent Firm size (Revenue, Percent
Mio. EUR)

Automation 21.2% <10 7.1%

Economic innovation performance and sustainability innovation Industrial electronics 8.2% 10–50 21.2%
performance Construction 8.2% 51–100 12.9%
Automotive 7.1% 101–250 14.1%
As argued above, economic and the sustainability related out- Food 7.1% >250 43.5%
Information technology 5.9% n/a 1.2%
comes represent separate performance dimensions of the firm’s
Professional services 5.9%
innovation activities. Prior research investigating the relationship Timber 4.7% Firm size (Number Percent
between the economic and sustainability performance is incon- of employees)
clusive. For instance, some authors have implied the existence Trade 4.7% <100 8.2%
Banking and insurance 4.7% 101–250 23.5%
of a neutral or positive relationship, emphasizing that firms have
Chemical 3.5% 251–500 17.6%
to add social and environmental performance indicators to their Logistics 3.5% 501–1000 16.5%
profit goals (Elkington, 1997; Vanclay, 2004). Others have argued Others 15.4% >1000 34.1%
that business decisions on sustainability issues require trade-offs
N = 85 firms.
by accepting lower profits and margins to realize sustainability
goals (e.g., DiVito & Bohnsack, 2017; Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010).
Furthermore, the scholars investigated this relationship at the sample included 152 informants from 85 firms. Additional sample
level of the firm’s operating business, not its innovation activities. characteristics are summarized in Table 1.
Thereby, changes in existing products and processes to achieve bet-
ter sustainability outcomes likely involve additional investments Measures
without creating approximating additional revenues or cost sav-
ings, resulting in a neutral or negative relationship between the To capture the constructs, we used multi-item measures for
firm’s economic and sustainability success. In the innovation pro- all variables and applied established scales wherever possible. The
cess, however, the new products, services, and processes are still informants were requested to rate each item on a five-point Likert-
under development and can thereby (a) incorporate the ideas, con- type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).
cerns, and knowledge from multiple stakeholders with lower or The level of collaboration with different partners was measured
no adaption costs because no prior investments are cannibalized, by three to four items for each involved party, drawing on the
and (b) produce innovation outcomes that meet both economic items described by Brettel and Cleven (2011). Each item evaluated
and sustainability goals because both have already been consid- the degree to which the individual partners were integrated into
ered in the product designs and the newly ramped up production or the firm’s innovation activities. For collaboration partners that had
service processes before their launch. If economic and sustainability not been investigated in the past, we developed additional items
innovation goals can be accomplished with similar open innova- to assess the level of cooperation with intermediaries, local com-
tion practices and collaboration partners — as proposed in prior munes, public institutions, and NGOs, closely following the scale
hypotheses — it is reasonable to assume a synergy, rather than a format used in past studies.
trade-off existing between the two innovation performance dimen- EIP was measured using six items described by Griffin and Page
sions. (1993) and Manion and Cherion (2009), which measured the impact
of the innovation activities carried out during the previous three
Hypothesis 3. Sustainability innovation performance and eco-
years on the innovation program’s economic success, such as rev-
nomic innovation performance are positively related.
enue, profitability, and market share. The SIP captured the degree
to which the firm’s innovation program activities had improved
Research method the firm’s sustainability success during the previous three years.
We developed a new scale that we could use to assess the multi-
Data collection and sampling dimensional concept of SIP. Based on the conceptual work of
Schöggl, Baumgartner and Hofer (2014) and Ketata et al. (2015), we
To test the proposed hypotheses, we conducted a quantitative defined four dimensions for SIP — product sustainability, resource
field survey study, including a sample of large and medium-sized efficiency, environmental pollution, and social responsibility — and
Austrian companies. Referring to the public company register, we developed two items to capture each dimension.
randomly selected a subsample of firms that met our restrictions
regarding their size and profit-orientation. We then sent an e-mail Properties of scales
to the executives including a brief description of the study and an
invitation to participate. The firms that responded and indicated We tested the multi-item scales for validity and reliability.
their commitment to take part in the study were instructed to The internal consistency was assessed by examining the Cron-
nominate an executive who could answer the performance ques- bach’s alpha coefficients, which ranged from 0.60 to 0.92 and
tions and a knowledgeable informant who was responsible for R&D were acceptable. The unidimensional nature of the scales was sup-
or innovation and could assess the company’s open innovation ported by the results of the principal component analyses (varimax
practices, such as the level of cooperation with external partners. rotation), which extracted one factor with an eigenvalue greater
The two informants received different questionnaires electroni- than one for each construct. An additional principal component
cally, which included questions relevant solely to their areas of analysis that included all cooperation items of all collaboration
expertise and which they could send back separately. This multiple- partners reproduced the intended factor structure without cross-
informant design limited potential common source bias. However, loadings higher than 0.40. Similarly, a principal component analysis
due to the stronger involvement of executives in functional tasks including all items of EIP extracted one unidimensional factor.
such as R&D and innovation when the firm size was small, 18 To calculate the overall economic performance score, we calcu-
executives answered both questionnaires. The final cross-sectional lated the mean of the corresponding items. The same approach
 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4 (2018) 226–233 229

Table 2
Scales, Scale Properties, Means, and Standard Deviation.

Variables Items ˛ Min Max Mean s.d. Informant Source

Sustainability Innovation Performance (SIP) 1.75 4.50 3.39 .54 Conceptually based
SIP – Environmental Pollution 2 .85 1.00 5.00 3.36 .81 EXEC on Schöggl et al.
SIP – Resource Efficiency 2 .82 1.00 5.00 3.67 .71 EXEC (2014); Ketata et al.
SIP – Social Responsibility 2 .60 1.00 5.00 3.34 .74 EXEC (2015)
SIP – Product Sustainability 2 .61 1.00 5.00 3.12 .75 EXEC

Economic Innovation Performance 6 .81 1.50 5.00 3.79 .64 EXEC Griffin and Page (1993); Manion and Cherion (2009)

Cooperation Customers 3 .87 1.33 5.00 3.87 .99 RDI Brettel and Cleven (2011)
Cooperation Suppliers 4 .80 1.00 5.00 3.44 .68 RDI Brettel and Cleven (2011)
Cooperation Competitors 3 .90 1.00 5.00 2.18 1.10 RDI Brettel and Cleven (2011)
Cooperation Experts 4 .92 1.00 5.00 3.54 .93 RDI Brettel and Cleven (2011)
Cooperation Universities 4 .88 1.00 5.00 3.62 1.15 RDI Brettel and Cleven (2011)
Cooperation Intermediaries 3 .91 1.00 4.67 2.93 1.24 RDI Based on Brettel and Cleven (2011)
Cooperation Communes 3 .90 1.00 5.00 2.72 1.28 RDI Based on Brettel and Cleven (2011)
Cooperation Public Institutions 3 .80 1.00 5.00 3.46 1.02 RDI Based on Brettel and Cleven (2011)
Cooperation NGOs 3 .71 1.00 3.67 2.23 .91 RDI Based on Brettel and Cleven (2011)

˛, cronbach alpha; s.d., standard deviation; Exec, executive; RDI, responsible R&D/innovation manager.

was taken to assess SIP, for which the four conceptual dimensions Results and discussion
were extracted. The scores of the four dimensions were aggregated
to calculate the overall SIP measure. The scales, correspond- Open innovation and economic innovation performance
ing properties, means, and standard deviations are reported in
Table 2. The benchmark results referring to EIP indicate that the dif-
ference between the top- and low-performers is rather large on
average ( = 1.3). As can be seen in Fig. 1, the biggest gaps can
Analysis be identified for the financial outcomes whereby the differences
between the achieved customer satisfaction and image advantage
The proposed relationships were tested by applying a bench- are smaller. As shown in Figs. 2–4, the EIP benchmark group col-
marking approach. Benchmarking is an established procedure that laborated with most of the innovation partners more intensively
is commonly used to identify success factors (e.g., Cooper, Edgett & than the companies with lower levels of performance, except for
Kleinschmidt, 2004), so we considered it an appropriate method to competitors ( = −0.1) and experts ( = −0.3). One reason the low-
explore what top-performing companies do differently compared performers form closer collaborations with external experts could
to their less successful peers. Benchmarking is used to identify fac- be the lack of internal expertise.
tors (e.g., open innovation management practices) that are believed Regarding the open innovation collaboration with the various
to be responsible for achieving superior outcomes compared to the partners and EIP, several correlations were found to be significant.
actual performance outcomes (Ralston, Wright & Kumar, 2001). The benchmark group collaborated closely with customers ( = 0.8
This helps firms better identify what practices to apply in order in comparison to the low performers), and the correlation with
to improve their outcomes. the EIP is highly significant (r = 0.33; p < .001). The results are simi-
To define the benchmark group, we selected firms falling in the lar with regard to universities as collaboration partners ( = 0.7;
top 20%-quantile of the performance measure EIP and, thereby, r = 0.25; p ≤ 0.01). These results correspond to those of Brettel
identified the most successful firms, which are hereafter referred and Cleven (2011) and Stefan and Bengtsson (2017). Interestingly,
to as the benchmark firms. For the definition of the benchmark the collaboration with NGOs does not seem to be very inten-
group for SIP, the same procedure was applied. For each vari- sive, but the benchmark group outperforms the followers ( = 0.4),
able, the scores of the benchmark firms were then aggregated. and the positive correlation is significant (r = 0.22; p ≤ 0.05). With
The group means for each variable are the benchmark scores. respect to the remaining partners (suppliers, competitors, experts,
By replicating this procedure for the firms falling into the bot- intermediaries, communities, and public institutions), no signifi-
tom 20%-quantile, we provided a meaningful comparison for the cant correlations were found. Therefore, the data provides partial
benchmark scores with firms referred to as low-performing firms. support of hypothesis 1 for the stakeholder groups customers, uni-
Finally, we calculated the mean of all constructs over all firms versities, and NGOs.
within the sample to gain an additional score for the entire
population. Open innovation and sustainability innovation performance
To additionally validate the benchmark results as well as to test
the relationship between SIP and EIP, we analyzed the relation- With regard to SIP, the results shown in Fig. 1 indicate the
ships between the open innovation practices and the performance difference between the top- and low-performers is rather large
measures by calculating the Pearson correlations. ( = 1.5). The SIP benchmark group especially outperforms their
The different performance levels of these three groups in terms peers with respect to the product sustainability, indicated by the
of their overall SIP and EIP and its sub-dimensions are depicted biggest gap between top and low-performer. The top performer
in Fig. 1. The benchmark results are depicted in Figs. 2–4. In also report the highest levels of reduction in environmental pollu-
these figures, each collaboration partner is described, the results tion and increased resource efficiency. As can be seen, in Figs. 2–4,
of the comparison between the benchmark group (TOP), the low- the companies with the highest levels of SIP performance collabo-
performing comparison group (LOW) and the entire population rate with every partner more extensively than their counterparts
(ALL) are displayed, and the correlation coefficients are shown. The with low levels of performance.
results are separated for the EIP (in red on the right side) and the Five out of nine correlations between the management prac-
SIP (in green on the left side). tices and the performance were statistically significant. Customers
230 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4 (2018) 226–233

Sustainability innovation performance Economic innovation performance

Corr.
4.1 r = 0.19* 4.5
3.4 (p = 0.04) 3.9
2.6 3.2

SIP overall performance EIP overall performance

consisting of consisting of

Product sustainability Reduction Contribution to Contribution to

environmental pollution revenue profitability
3.8 4.2 4.5 4.6
3.1 3.4 3.7 3.8
2.4 2.5 3.0 3.0

Resource efficiency Social responsibility Contribution to Contribution to

net present value market share
4.3 4.0 4.2 4.3
3.7 3.3 3.6 3.6
3.0 2.7 3.1 3.1

Contribution to customer
Contribution to image
satisfaction
4.8 4.8
4.0 4.3
3.3 3.7
ø SIP TOP ø SIP ALL ø SIP LOW ø EIP TOP ø EIP ALL ø EIP LOW

Fig. 1. Performance dimensions of SIP and EIP (Source: Author’s study). Note: SIP, sustainability innovation performance; EIP, economic innovation performance; Top, top
performer; Low; low performer; top performer calculated as mean of top 20%-quantile; similar for low performer calculated as mean of bottom 20%-quantile; n = 85; r,
correlation coefficient (Pearson); p, probability level. † p ≤ .10; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001 (one-tailed).

Collaboration customers Sustainability innovation Economic innovation

performation benchmark Corr. performance benchmark Corr.
Active dialogue with customers, analysis 4.1 r = 0.24** 4.4 r = 0.33***
of customer requirements and integration (p = 0.01) (p = 0.001)
of customers into the innovation process 3.9 4.0
3.7 3.6

Collaboration suppliers Sustainability innovation Economic innovation

performation benchmark Corr. performance benchmark Corr.
Dialogue with suppliers on 3.6 r = 0.04 3.6 r = 0.06
technological developments and (p = 0.35) (p = 0.30)
3.4 3.5
joint development activities
3.3 3.4

Collaboration competitors Sustainability innovation Economic innovation

performation benchmark Corr. performance benchmark Corr.

Open dialogue on trends and joint 2.6 r = 0.17† 2.3 r = 0.04

product and technology developments (p = 0.06) (p = 0.36)
2.2 2.4
1.7 2.4
ø SIP TOP ø EIP TOP
ø SIP ALL
ø EIP ALL
ø SIP LOW ø EIP LOW

Fig. 2. Results Benchmark Study (Source: Author’s study). Note: SIP, sustainability innovation performance; EIP, economic innovation performance; Top, top performer; Low;
low performer; top performer calculated as mean of top 20%-quantile; similar for low performer calculated as mean of bottom 20%-quantile; n = 85; r, correlation coefficient
(Pearson); p, probability level. † p ≤ .10; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001 (one-tailed).

are considered the most highly preferred collaboration partners, support them by communicating their innovation activities to
and the correlation is significant (r = 0.24; p ≤ 0.01); for innovat- members of the community. As we expected, our results showed
ing with intermediaries, the result is similar (r = 0.26; p ≤ 0.01). that NGOs play important roles even though the results revealed
In this context, intermediaries are organizations supporting the collaboration is not that intensive; still, the correlation is
companies in their search for partners for innovation projects, significant (r = 0.27; p ≤ 0.01). These results echo those reported
providing information about industry trends and technological by Adamczyk, Bullinger and Moeslein (2011), who emphasized
developments, and are seen by the companies as partners who that companies worldwide need to recognize the power of open
 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4 (2018) 226–233 231

Collaboration universities Sustainability innovation Economic innovation

performation benchmark Corr. performance benchmark Corr.
Collaboration and joint improvement or 4.0 r = 0.19* 4.0 r = 0.25**
development of technologies (p = 0.04) (p = 0.001)
3.6 3.6
3.2 3.3

Collaboration Experts Sustainability innovation Economic innovation

performation benchmark Corr. performance benchmark Corr.

Collaboration with independent 3.6 r = 0.02 3.4 r = 0.02

experts to genetate ideas, (p = 0.42) (p = 0.44)
information exchange, and joint 3.5 3.5
develpoment activities 3.4 3.7

Collaboration intermediaries Sustainability innovation Economic innovation

performation benchmark Corr. performance benchmark Corr.
Collaboration to search for innivation 3.4 r = 0.26** 3.0 r = 0.03
partner and information about industry (p = 0.01) (p = 0.39)
and terchnology trends 2.9 2.9
2.5 2.8

ø SIP TOP ø EIP TOP

ø SIP ALL
ø EIP ALL
ø SIP LOW ø EIP LOW

Fig. 3. Results Benchmark Study (Source: Author’s study). Note: SIP, sustainability innovation performance; EIP, economic innovation performance; Top, top performer; Low;
low performer; top performer calculated as mean of top 20%-quantile; similar for low performer calculated as mean of bottom 20%-quantile; n = 85; r, correlation coefficient
(Pearson); p, probability level. † p ≤ .10; *p ≤ .05; ** p ≤ .01; *** p ≤ .001 (one-tailed).

Collaboration NGOs Sustainability innovation Economic innovation

performation benchmark Corr. performance benchmark Corr.
Gathering feddback and opinions for 2.7 r = 0.27** 2.2 r = 0.33***
innovation projects as well as evaluation (p = 0.01) (p = 0.001)
2.2 2.0
of working conditions and production
sites by NGOs 1.8 1.8

Collaboration communes Sustainability innovation Economic innovation

performation benchmark Corr. performance benchmark Corr.
Integration and information transfer to 3.0 r = 0.05 2.9 r = 0.06
representatives of local stakeholders (p = 0.31) (p = 0.08)
regarding upcoming innovation projects 2.7 2.8
2.5 2.7

Collaboration public Sustainability innovation Economic innovation

institutions performation benchmark Corr. performance benchmark Corr.
3.7 r = 0.13 3.8 r = 0.13
Gather information regarding directives (p = 0.13) (p = 0.12)
and standards and contribution to the 3.5 3.7
preparation; allocate use of certificates 3.2 3.6
and labels through public institution
ø SIP TOP ø EIP TOP
ø SIP ALL ø EIP ALL
ø SIP LOW ø EIP LOW

Fig. 4. Results Benchmark Study (Source: Author’s study). Note: SIP, sustainability innovation performance; EIP, economic innovation performance; Top, top performer; Low;
low performer; top performer calculated as mean of top 20%-quantile; similar for low performer calculated as mean of bottom 20%-quantile; n = 85; r, correlation coefficient
(Pearson); p, probability level. † p ≤ .10; *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001 (one-tailed).

innovation platforms and use collaborative networks, such as that most companies have limited experience with their develop-
the ‘open planet ideas’ and collaboration platforms created by ment and commercialization requires additional expertise and the
Sony and WWF, to fuel sustainability innovation. Moreover, the creation of new synergies. However, with respect to the remaining
exchange with universities (r = 0.19; p ≤ 0.05) and competitors partners (suppliers, experts, communes, and public institutions),
(r = 0.17; p ≤ 0.10) is of relevance for SIP. Although the correlation no significant correlations were found. Hence, the data provides
is weak, one surprising result was that competitors seem to be partial support for hypothesis 2 for the collaboration groups cus-
relevant for open innovation activities. These results support the tomers, universities, intermediaries, NGOs, and, with limitations,
assumption that the complexity of sustainability innovations and competitors.
232 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4 (2018) 226–233

Economic innovation performance and sustainability innovation activities are accepted (Brettel & Cleven, 2011; Wiener, Gattringer
performance & Strehl, 2017) and whether sustainability concerns can be suc-
cessfully enter the firm’s innovation activities (Globocnik, Rauter &
Supporting hypothesis 3, the analysis revealed a positive and Baumgartner, 2017). Since the strategic orientation of the firm and
significant correlation (r = 0.19; p ≤ 0.05) between EIP and SIP. This how the strategic intention of the management is communicated
means striving for economic and sustainability related innovation internally and externally is an important economic innovation per-
goals at the same time does not represent a contradiction but a formance driver (Bart & Pujari, 2007), future research may also
synergy. investigate how the formal strategy impacts sustainability inno-
vation performance.

Conclusions and future research

References
In the current study, we focused on the questions of if and
how collaboration with external partners influenced a company’s Achterkamp, M. C., & Vos, J. F. J. (2006). A framework for making sense of
EIP and SIP. Whereas the well-known concept of open innova- sustainable innovation through stakeholder involvement. International Journal
tion has frequently been used in recent empirical studies, we of Environmental Technology and Management, 6(6), 525–538.
Adamczyk, S., Bullinger, A. C., & Moeslein, K. M. (2011). Commenting for new ideas:
wanted to enlarge the concept within the context of sustainability Insights from an open innovation platform. International Journal Technology
innovations, and expanding the list of potential stakeholders as Intelligence and Planning, 7(3), 232–249.
collaboration partners. Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement:
A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21–47.
While prior studies have investigated effects of openness on Arnold, M. (2011). The role of open innovation in strengthening corporate
economic innovation performance of firms (for an overview see responsibility. International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 3(3), 361–379.
e.g., Stefan & Bengtsson, 2017), our research provides evidence for Arnold, M. (2017). Fostering sustainability by linking co-creation and relationship
management concepts. Journal of Cleaner Production, 140(Part 1), 179–188.
the use of open innovation in the context of sustainability inno- Baregheh, A., Rowley, J., & Sambrook, S. (2009). Towards a multidisciplinary
vation. The results additionally showed that it can be essential to definition of innovation. Management Decision, 47(8), 1313–1339.
involve both partners directly associated with the company, such Bart, C., & Pujari, A. (2007). The performance impact of content and process in
product innovation charters. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 24,
as customers or universities, and other stakeholders in the broader
3–19.
ecosystem, such as intermediaries or NGOs who might have a Brettel, M., & Cleven, N. J. (2011). Innovation culture, collaboration with external
mutual interest in improving the outcome of companies, partic- partners and NPD performance. Creativity and Innovation Management, 20(4),
253–272.
ularly with respect to sustainability. Moreover, their involvement
Carrillo-Hermosilla, J., del Río, P., & Könnölä, T. (2010). Diversity of
could help companies overcome market failures and provide spe- eco-innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. Journal of Cleaner
cific information and knowledge beneficial for the firm’s innovation Production, 18(10–11), 1073–1083.
activities. For the development of the open innovation approach Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation. The new imperative for creating and
profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
for sustainability, it seems to be appropriate and meaningful to Chesbrough, H. (2012). Open innovation: Where we’ve been and where we’re
emphasize a broader stakeholder approach. In addition, we pro- going. Research-Technology Management, 55(4), 20–27.
vided empirical evidence supporting the assumption that EIP and Cooper, R. G., Edgett, S. J., & Kleinschmidt, E. J. (2004). Benchmarking best NPD
practices – II. Research-Technology Management, 47(3), 50–59.
SIP do not imply trade-off decisions in terms of investing resources Crossan, M. M., & Apaydin, M. (2010). A multi-dimensional framework of
when it comes to the innovation activities of the firm. For man- organizational innovation: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of
agers, this means that goals which appear to be divergent at first Management Studies, 47(6), 1154–1191.
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6),
sight could be reached simultaneously. 699–709.
However, this study also has its limitations. We developed a Dangelico, R. M., & Pujari, D. (2010). Mainstreaming green product innovation:
new measure to capture the SIP of the firm’s innovation program, Why and how companies integrate environmental sustainability. Journal of
Business Ethics, 95(3), 471–486.
which needs further validation in future empirical research. The
de Medeiros, J. F., Ribeiro, J. L. D., & Cortimiglia, M. N. (2014). Success factors for
sample is also limited to firms located in Austria. To generalize environmentally sustainable product innovation: A systematic literature
the findings, additional data from other regions are necessary. An review. Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 76–86.
DiVito, L., & Bohnsack, R. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and its effect on
extended data base may also allow to capture further more detailed
sustainability decision tradeoffs: The case of sustainable fashion firms. Journal
sectoral differences that we could not explore. Although common of Business Venturing, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.002
method bias concerns were addressed by collecting data from mul- Dodgson, M., Gann, D., & Phillips, N. (2014). The oxford handbook of innovation
tiple respondents within the firms, additional secondary data to management. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Elkington, J. (1997). Cannibals with forks – The triple bottom line of 21st century
back the subjective ratings of the firm’s economic and sustaina- business. Oxford: Capstone Publishing Ltd.
bility innovation performance would be necessary to improve the Elmquist, M., Fredberg, T., & Ollila, S. (2009). Exploring the field of open innovation.
rating validity. However, this was not possible in our case due to European Journal of Innovation Management, 12(3), 326–345.
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA:
the size of the participating firms. This approach would require to Pitman.
draw on a sample of MNE for which this kind of secondary data is Gassmann, O., Enkel, E., & Chesbrough, H. (2010). The future of open innovation.
more likely available through public records. R&D Management, 40(3), 213–222.
Gianiodis, P. T., Ellis, S. C., & Secchi, E. (2010). Advancing a typology of open
The findings presented in this paper have opened up signifi- innovation. International Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), 531–572.
cant opportunities for future research. First, the newly established Giannopoulou, E., Yström, A., & Ollila, S. (2011). Turning open innovation into
scale to measure SIP can be used to drive future research on suc- practice: Open innovation research through the lens of managers. International
Journal of Innovation Management, 15(3), 505–524.
cess factors for sustainability innovation. Second, opportunities
Globocnik, D., Romana, R., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2017). Synergy or conflict?
exist to conduct a more detailed investigation of open innova- Sustainability vs. economic innovation performance, and the role of
tion practices and its suitability for sustainability innovation, e.g., organizational culture. In Proceedings of the 24th innovation and product
development management conference (pp. 1–25). ISSN 1998-7374.
examine how expertise on different sustainability issues can be
Gould, R. W. (2012). Open innovation and stakeholder engagement. Journal of
in-sourced rather than brought in through outside-in processes. Technology Management and Innovation, 7(3), 1–11.
Third, it would be interesting to additionally analyze how com- Griffin, A., & Page, A. L. (1993). An interim report on measuring product
pany factors influence the internal acceptance and implementation development success and failure. Journal of Product Innovation Management,
10(4), 291–308.
of open innovation for sustainability innovation. For instance, the Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2003). The challenges of innovating for sustainable
organizational culture might influence whether open innovation development. MIT sloan management review. Fall, 2003, 61–68.
 R. Rauter et al. / Journal of Innovation & Knowledge 4 (2018) 226–233 233

Holmes, S., & Smart, P. (2009). Exploring open innovation practice in Michelino, F., Caputo, M., Cammarano, A., & Lamberti, E. (2014). Inbound and
firm-nonprofit engagements: A corporate social responsibility perspective. outbound open innovation: Organization and performances. Journal of
R&D Management, 39(4), 394–422. Technology Management & Innovation, 9(3), 65–82.
Horn, C., & Brem, A. (2013). Strategic directions on innovation management – A Manzini, R., Lazzarotti, V., & Pellegrini, L. (2017). How to remain as closed as
conceptual framework. Management Research Review, 36(10), possible in the open innovation era: The case of Lindt & Sprüngli. Long Range
939–954. Planning, 50, 260–281.
Hossain, M. (2010). Open innovation: So far and a way forward. World Journal of Mustaquim, M. M., & Nyström, T. (2014). Designing information systems for
Science Technology and Sustainable Development, 10(1), sustainability – The role of universal design and open innovation. pp. 1–16.
30–41. Lecture notes in computer sciences (Vol. 8463).
Huizingh, E. K. R. E. (2011). Open innovation: State of the art and future Niinimäki, K., & Hassi, L. (2011). Emerging design strategies in sustainable
perspectives. Technovation, 31(1), 2–9. production and consumption of textiles and clothing. Journal of Cleaner
Inauen, M., & Schenker-Wicki, A. (2011). The impact of outside-in open innovation Production, 19(16), 1876–1883.
on innovation performance. European Journal of Innovation Management, 14(4), Ralston, D., Wright, A., & Kumar, J. (2001). Process benchmarking as a market
496–520. research tool for strategic planning. Marketing Intelligence& Planning, 19(4),
Kemp, R., & Pearson, P. (2007). Final report MEI project about measuring 273–281.
eco-innovation. Deliverable 15. Retrieved from Schöggl, J.-P., Baumgartner, R. J., & Hofer, D. (2014). A checklist for sustainable
http://www.oecd.org/env/consumption-innovation/43960830.pdf product development: Improving sustainability performance in early phases of
Ketata, I., Sofka, W., & Grimpe, C. (2015). The role of internal capabilities and firms’ product design. In I. Horváth, & Z. Rusák (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth
environment for sustainable innovation: Evidence for Germany. R&D international symposium on tools and methods of competitive engineering,
Management, 45(1), 1–16. Budapest, Hungary (pp. 563–576).
Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orientation on Snider, J., Hill, R. P., & Martin, D. (2003). Corporate social responsibility in the 21st
entrepreneurial intentions – Investigating the role of business experience. century: A view from the world’ s most successful firms. Journal of Business
Journal of Business Venturing, 25(5), 524–539. Ethics, 48, 175–187.
Lawson, B., & Samson, D. (2001). Developing innovation capability in Stefan, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2017). Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and
organisations: A dynamic capabilities approach. International Journal of openness depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation
Innovation Management, 5(3), 377–400. process. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 120, 252–260.
Lee, K.-H., & Kim, J.-W. (2011). Integrating suppliers into green product innovation Tsai, K.-H., & Liao, Y. C. (2017). Sustainability Strategy and eco-innovation: A
development: An empirical case study in the semiconductor industry. Business moderation model. Business Strategy and the Environment, 26, 426–437.
Strategy and the Environment, 20(8), 527–538. Vanclay, F. (2004). The triple bottom line and impact assessment: How do TBL, EIA,
Lozano, R. (2007). Collaboration as a pathway for sustainability. Sustainable SIA. SEA and EMS relate to each other? Journal of Environmental Assessment
Development, 15(March), 370–381. Policy and Management, 6(3), 265–288.
Manion, M. T., & Cherion, J. (2009). Impact of strategic type on success measures Wiener, M., Gattringer, R., & Strehl, F. (2017). Participation in inter-organisational
for product development projects. Journal of Product Innovation Management, collaborative open foresight. A matter of culture. Technology Analysis &
26, 71–85. Strategic Management, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2017.1376045