The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/0368-492X.htm

Scientific
Scientific mapping on the mapping
convergence of innovation and
sustainability (innovability):
1990–2018
Ivan Manuel De la Vega Hernandez and Luciano Barcellos de Paula Received 31 May 2020
Revised 15 July 2020
CENTRUM Catolica Graduate Business School, Lima, 3 August 2020
Peru and Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru, Lima, Peru Accepted 11 August 2020

Abstract
Purpose – Innovation and sustainability are key in today’s competitive world. It is no longer possible to
conceive an organization that has not incorporated these two elements for it to become successful. The
longitudinal bibliometric study seeks to examine the topography of innovation and sustainability to
determine whether there is already a terminological integration that could be defined as innovation capability
in a sustainable way. The objective of this work is to identify the growth trajectories of the literature, the
countries considered as knowledge nodes, the most influential authors, the classification of journals, clusters
and collaborative networks measured by co-citation, the analysis by keywords, countries and knowledge
areas.
Design/methodology/approach – The study is developed under the bibliometric approach, and the
period 1990–2018 was considered. The steps taken were as follows: 16 keywords of each term were identified
and selected in 3 methodological layers by a panel of experts; an algorithm was designed and applied to
identify these selected keywords in the titles, abstracts and keywords using terms in the Web of Science
(WoS) of Clarivate Analytics to contrast them; and a review in specialized journals was carried out in the first
quartile (Q1) of the WoS until 2018.
Findings – The most relevant finding of the study lies in the sustained growth of the convergence
of the terms innovation and sustainability. In addition, the longitudinal review of the two concepts
also shows that innovation is directly linked to sustainability, suggesting that the convergence of
concepts and practices becomes part of the strategy of companies seeking to be competitive and
sustainable.
Practical implications – At the management level, this research seeks to present a definition of
innovability based on the convergence of the concepts of innovation and sustainability. This new
concept can be applied as a management strategy for companies seeking to be competitive and
sustainable. Theoretical and practical evidences that reinforce this construct are presented. At the
academic level, the manuscript shows a longitudinal review on innovation and sustainability, a relevant
scientific mapping and, finally, a new theoretical and practical concept is proposed that seeks to create
strategies for competitiveness in a sustainable way. At the level of society, the study contributes to the
sustainable development goals.
Originality/value – The results show that a field of studies on innovation is emerging that has a
high potential to position itself as a new space for research. The concept of “innovability” is
proposed.
Keywords Bibliometric analysis, Knowledge networks, Sustainable development, Open innovation,
Innovability
Paper type Research paper

Kybernetes
© Emerald Publishing Limited
0368-492X
The authors wish to thank the CENTRUM Catolica Graduate Business School, Peru. DOI 10.1108/K-05-2020-0328
K 1. Introduction [1]
In the globalized world in which we live, organizations are required to be competitive not to
disappear, and innovation is the critical factor of success because it is the means that allows
them to anticipate or adapt themselves to the constant changes that are taking place (Arranz
et al., 2019; Coad, 2019; De la Vega Hernandez and Barcellos de Paula, 2019; De la Vega et al.,
2019; Keisler et al., 2020). Innovation is the engine of competitiveness at all levels and
explains how new solutions, partial or total, are offered to issues in different spheres such as
in the organization, processes, products, marketing and in business models (Arranz et al.,
2019; Bogers et al., 2018; OECD and Eurostat, 2019; Strand et al., 2018). However, dynamics
based on innovation alone are no longer enough. Now, it is required to go further and try to
ensure sustainability in an eco-friendly way (Afshar et al., 2017; Barcellos de Paula and
Marins, 2018; Carayannis, and Campbell, 2019; Prouty et al., 2018). Sustainability was born
as an idea associated with the need to mobilize collective responsibility that seeks to address
the major challenges facing humanity (Afshar et al., 2017; Bitso et al., 2020; Carayannis and
Campbell, 2019). Today, this issue has moved to the centre of gravity of the activities of all
types of organizations because of its strategic relevance and its capacity to evolve by
adapting to the current complexity, vulnerability, ambiguity and uncertainty (Peng et al.,
2020; Schick et al., 2017; Seijo, 2016).
With the challenges presented, it is necessary to research and propose innovation
strategies that allow companies to increase productivity and achieve sustainable
development by reducing problems of industrialization, mobility and CO2 emissions. For
these reasons, research has as its primary motivation to present a new concept of
management strategy for companies that seek to be competitive and sustainable through
innovation.
In examining a value-adding timeline on the definition of innovation, Schumpeter’s
seminal contribution to this topic was used as the starting point. Between the 1930s and
1940s, this economist introduced the concept of innovation and theorized about the changes
that were taking place at that time, even from an interdisciplinary approach. When speaking
of “creative destruction”, this author considered that the dynamics that were developing
were linked to the type of capitalism of the time and spoke of the innovative entrepreneur
(Schumpeter, 1934). These changes implied the introduction of new goods and services,
industries and competitors that emerged and swept away the existing ones, so producers
had to survive by rationalizing production with new and better tools that made workers
more productive and competitive (Schumpeter, 1942). In the 1950s, Robert Solow proposed
his model laying the foundations for the development of the neoclassical theory of economic
growth because his argument indicated that productivity was based on the traditional
factors, capital and labour, but included a new residual factor related to technological
development (Solow, 1956, 1957). In the 1960s, Shultz presented his theory on human capital,
an approach that should consider the investment that people made in absorbing knowledge
through their education and continuous training and the effect of these aspects when
evaluating innovation. This new approach introduced a perspective of analysis that went
beyond the economistic model of innovation, opening up new currents of thought (Schultz,
1961). In that same decade, specifically in 1967, the World Intellectual Property Organization
(WIPO) was created, providing a platform for the use and protection of human intellectual
works, which contributed to the promotion of a greater number of works and to consolidate
the approaches on the participation of people in the creation process (WIPO, 2020). In the
1970s, Freeman addressed the issue of industrial innovation, marking a line of
differentiation on the theory of economic development and growth itself, linking the macro
and microeconomic aspects. At that time, the neo-Schumpeterian movement was
consolidated, with an emphasis on technology (Freeman, 1974). Nelson and Winter (1982) Scientific
defined innovation as a change that required a considerable degree of imagination. Their mapping
argument was based on the fact that innovation significantly changes the way things are
done and this happens at the level of organizations. This definition, and their theory on the
behaviour of the firm, helped to understand where the changes were occurring. Another
relevant approach was proposed in 1985 by Drucker, when he determined that the
innovative entrepreneur is the one who develops the innovation process based on Research
and Development (R&D) activities within the company (Drucker, 1985). In 1987, a theoretical
leap was made regarding the macro and microeconomic analysis of innovation, with the
emergence of an explanatory model known as the National Innovation Systems (Dosi, 1990;
Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1988). In the 1990s, multiple approaches, theories and concepts on
innovation emerged and developed, including the consolidation of systemic thinking about
innovation. A fact that marks its importance became evident with the creation of the first
Oslo Manual in 1992, which was intended to become the world reference standard for
conceptualizing, theorizing and measuring innovation, and which has been updated in 1997,
2005 and 2018 (OECD and Eurostat, 2019). In the first decade of the 21st century,
Chesbrough introduced the concept of open innovation by promoting the idea of
collaboration with third parties and breaking with the paradigm of information
confidentiality through crowdsourcing and innovation ecosystems (Chesbrough, 2003). In
the second decade of this century, the concept of social innovation has emerged with force
and continues to develop, even though some authors such as Godin indicate that already in
the years following the French Revolution, aspects associated with the search to satisfy
social needs were being proposed that are still not adequately covered by traditional actors
(Godin, 2012). After longitudinally reviewing the seminal authors of the main trends
associated with the topic, in this study, innovation is understood as a product, process,
service, organizational changes, marketing strategy or business model (or combination
thereof) that differs significantly from what already exists, and which has been made
available to the organization (OECD and Eurostat, 2019).
The concept of sustainability proposed in this research should be analyzed through a
theoretical and practical longitudinal review in which several authors have contributed with
different approaches to its evolution. In this sense, sustainability is based on the concept of
sustainable development created by the United Nations (UN) (WCED, 1987). The common
goal has been to achieve “development that meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”. The concept was
used in various areas of knowledge such as environmental studies, green and sustainable
science and technology, management, business and economy, among others, and its success
was directly linked to the commitment and management of stakeholders (Freeman, 1984).
Sustainability in the business environment was born with the concept “The Triple Bottom
Line” (Elkington, 1994) which would be an application of sustainable development in the
company. The author proposed a model of responsible management through a balance
among three dimensions combining economic development, social progress and
environmental protection.
Porter and Kramer (2002) claim that the company gains competitive advantage by
strategically working philanthropy while generating economic and social benefits. It would,
therefore, be a combination or convergence of interests. The authors outline four elements of
competitive context and how to maximize value through corporate philanthropy. These are
philanthropic projects managed strategically to generate economic and social benefits.
Along these lines, Hart and Milstein defined “corporate sustainability” to refer to the
company that creates value at the level of strategies and practices to move towards a more
K sustainable world. This model is structured in four strategies for the creation of sustainable
value, and they consider innovation to be a fundamental part to achieve this result (Hart and
Milstein, 2003).
Another significant contribution was made by Porter and Kramer when they stated that
companies should include sustainability in their value chain to achieve a competitive
advantage and that corporate social responsibility (CSR) becomes strategic for companies
(Porter and Kramer, 2007). At this point, environmental benefit is also generated. In other
words, we have social, economic and environmental benefits. Other authors argued that the
stakeholders are essential for the generation of wealth in companies and that CSR would be
the integration in economic decision-making with ethical, social and environmental criteria
(Freeman et al., 2010).
Another approach has been given by Porter and Kramer by postulating the concept of
shared value as those “policies and operating practices that enhance the competitiveness of a
company while simultaneously advancing the economic and social conditions in the
communities in which it operates”. For the authors, shared value is created through reaching
new markets and consumers at the base of the pyramid; using better technology,
cogeneration, recycling, optimizing the logistics system, use of resources, development of
suppliers; and increasing productivity by building clusters. It was a proposal to face the
challenges of economic development in the 21st century, which seeks a greater commitment
from companies and society in the search for solutions towards a better and sustainable
world (Porter and Kramer, 2011).
In 2015, all UN Member States committed to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals
(SDGs), which is a universal call to end poverty, protect the planet and ensure that all people
enjoy peace and prosperity by 2030 (United Nations, 2015). The SDGs are integrated, as they
recognize that interventions in one specific area will affect the outcomes of others and that
development must balance environmental, economic and social sustainability. It should be
noted that SDG 9–Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure is related to the subject of this
research because they are recognized as a key driver of economic growth and development.
This objective also strengthens the links between innovation and sustainability. Therefore,
defining the progressive convergence of innovation and sustainability, from the point of
view of the knowledge being generated in the Web of Science (WoS), is the purpose of this
study. The approach is bibliometric and longitudinal and seeks to examine the topography
of innovation and sustainability to determine whether there is already a terminological
integration that we would define as capacity for innovation in a sustainable way
(innovability). Figure 1 presents a synthesis of the literature related to the purpose of the
research.
The aim of the study is to identify the growth trajectories of literature, to detect the
countries considered as knowledge nodes, to show the most influential authors and to
know the classification of journals, clusters and collaborative networks measured by
co-citation.
The most relevant finding of the study can be seen in the sustained growth of the
convergence of both terms and the new intellectual dimensions that are emerging around
them. It is estimated that the term innovability, as the new convergence, will prevail in the
world. This new term must be incorporated into all types of organizations, given that it is no
longer possible to think about innovation without that action being sustainable.
The motivations for the study are the need to establish strategies that combine
innovation and sustainability, seeking greater competitiveness in companies with
sustainable practices that reduce risks and costs in operations, minimize the human
footprint on the planet and contribute to sustainable development. The convergence
 Scientific
mapping

Figure 1.
Synthesis of the
literature related to
the purpose of the
research

between innovation and sustainability is a strategic element for companies in a competitive

market. Another reason is to give support to companies that must meet the demand of
various stakeholders to search for sustainable solutions and answer the challenges of the
21st century.
The main contribution of the manuscript is to deepen studies on 32 keywords in
innovation and sustainability through bibliometric analysis. It is also to present theoretical
and practical evidence that reinforces the convergence between innovation and
sustainability. Another contribution of the article refers to proposing a new management
strategy concept, based on innovation and sustainability, to reduce the problems of
industrialization, mobility and CO2 emissions, and contribute to sustainable development.
The most significant limitation concerns the number of keywords included in the analysis.
The article is structured as follows. Section 2 presents the methodology used. Section 3
shows the results of the bibliometric review. Section 4 describes the conclusions,
contributions and future lines of research and references.

2. Methodology
This section presents the methodological steps applied to carry out the bibliometric
mapping that followed a combined approach (Bordons and Zulueta, 1999; Chinchilla-
Rodríguez et al., 2018; Costas et al., 2010; Van Raan, 1999). In this specific case, a pattern was
applied that resulted in obtaining a total of one family of indicators that allowed showing 11
Tables and 7 Figures. The topics discussed related to sustainability and innovation were the
following:
K  number of papers and citations per year (CPY);
 number of keywords per country;
 collaborations with the largest number of connections;
 most productive countries worldwide;
 keyword combinations;
 knowledge areas;
 most cited keywords and papers; and
 institutions per most productive countries.
The first step was a consultation with three experts in innovation and three in
sustainability. This resulted in a process to reach a consensus on the validation of the 32
keywords used in each of the two topics. Under the rule of distance and proximity of the
keywords, three rounds were carried out to reach an agreement. This process is known as
the first layer of recognition of the most relevant descriptors and serves to generate the
rankings for each topic. Table 1 shows the final 16 keywords identified for each topic.
In a second step, an algorithmic search was performed in the WoS database of Clarivate
Analytics, using the Core collection: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED);
Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts and Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI), to
identify in the titles, abstracts and keywords the papers associated to the 16 words of each
topic. This study does not include grey literature, conference proceedings, books or book
chapters. This is known as the second working layer.
As a third step, the data were validated by performing a debugging process that led to
the elimination of duplications and errors found, refining the results. The search strategy
were carried out for the two terms and the 16 keywords selected for each of them with the
following method: search query text:
 For the query of the term sustainability, “climate change” OR “environmental
management” OR “”, etc., was applied to each keyword.
 The term innovation was added to each keyword, “open innovation” OR “social innovation”
OR “”, etc. The last step of this method was to connect queries i and ii with the “AND”
operator. Figure 2 shows the process of the methodological steps used in this study.

Sustainability Innovation

Climate change Open innovation

Environmental management Social innovation
Circular economy Technological innovation
Clean production Product innovation
Sustainable development Process innovation
Global warming Non-technological innovation
Health and safety at work Innovation in services
Clean energy Business innovation
Transparency Incremental innovation
Global reporting initiative Radical/disruptive innovation
Stakeholders National innovation system
Corporate social responsibility Regional innovation systems
Triple bottom line Innovation systems
Business sustainability Innovation financing
Table 1. Creating sustainable value Innovation policy
Selected keywords Shared value Organizational innovation
 Scientific
mapping

Figure 2.
Workflow for
performing the
bibliometric review

In the fourth step, the data were debugged using three filters. In the fifth step, data
extraction was performed in February 2020. The Clarivate Analytics Web of Science (WoS)
was selected as it were considered more robust than others and because it allows more
detailed citation analysis. In this study, 1990 was taken as the base year because, before that
date, the number of articles on the subject of sustainability was almost non-existent. It is
also the database collection with the most structured information in terms of time range.
Data extraction was performed using Python. The results were stored in Excel format and
then the R software was used to generate the tables and graphs. The VOSviewer software
was used to generate the graph of connections and to obtain the complete list of authors. The
following section presents the results of the study.

3. Results and discussion of the bibliometric review

This section shows the results of the bibliometric review. The outcomes will be presented
through figures and tables with the respective analysis.
Figure 3 shows a graph of the evolution of the number of citations and articles published
in the period from 1990 to 2017. A positive trend over time can be seen in the number of

Figure 3.
Papers per year
K articles, reaching 1,374 publications on the subject in 2017. In relation to the number of
citations, a reduction is observed as of 2014.
Table 2 shows that the number of articles had a constant growth during all the years, and
that, from 2016, this increase was more accentuated, reaching 1,759 articles published in
2018. Regarding the number of citations, it is noted that the peak was in 2013 with 18,810
citations, and that from 2016, there was a small reduction. Another interesting fact refers to
the gradual growth of the average number of authors per document, which goes from 2.0 in
1990 to 3.7 in 2018. In general, the results are quite consistent and show strength at the
academic level of the subjects researched.
In summary, the results of Table 2 and Figure 3 show that this topic is relevant to
academia and that the frontier of knowledge is becoming increasingly widespread. The
main reason for the result would be in the importance of innovation and sustainability to
solve the great challenges of society related to achieving competitiveness and respect for the
environment at the same time.
Table 3 shows the ranking of 20 countries with the number of documents associated with
the keywords. First, it can be seen that “Innovation” leads in 15 countries and
“Sustainability” in 4 countries. Second, the USA leads the ranking among the countries,
followed by the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, Germany and China. Finally, it is
observed that the system includes words associated with the subject, such as “China”, which
is in the first position in China, while “Sustainability” is shown in the second position.
Figure 4 presents the collaboration networks between countries from 2010 to 2018. The
size of each sphere represents the number of publications per country; for example, the USA
has the highest number of publications, followed by the United Kingdom. The colour of each
sphere indicates the collaboration groups among countries; for example, the USA has
stronger collaboration links with the United Kingdom and Australia. On the other hand,
France has more collaboration ties with Italy and Spain.
Table 4 describes the countries with more publications. In 2018, the United Kingdom led
the ranking with 342 articles, followed by the USA with 309 articles and China with 229. The
results also indicate that the USA has led this ranking since 1993, and that only in 2018, it
moved into second position. Finally, it is observed that China entered strongly from 2017

Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Papers 3 – 8 8 21 21 23 16 33 45
Citations 9 – 544 167 1,733 1,523 791 1,704 2,850 1,185
CPD 3.0 – 68.0 20.9 82.5 72.5 34.4 106.5 86.4 26.3
Authors 2.0 0.0 1.6 1.5 1.9 2.1 1.7 1.8 2.1 1.9
Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Papers 50 63 57 73 87 112 135 186 258 307
Citations 4,376 2,851 2,932 3,543 6,451 5,588 10,717 10,802 11,059 12,518
CPD 87.5 45.3 51.4 48.5 74.2 49.9 79.4 58.1 42.9 40.8
Authors 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.6 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.9
Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Papers 402 419 531 663 731 856 1,134 1,374 1,759 9,375
Citations 17,079 14,558 18,049 18,810 16,361 15,175 14,935 11,816 6,958 215,084
CPD 42.5 34.7 34.0 28.4 22.4 17.7 13.2 8.6 4.0 22.9
Authors 2.6 2.8 3.1 3.1 3.8 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.7 2.4
Table 2.
Papers by year, Notes: CPD: citations per document
citations and CPD Source: Authors: average authors per document
Country Keyword Papers Country Keyword Papers
Scientific
mapping
USA innovation 242 Sweden sustainability 38
sustainability 195 innovation 36
climate change 97 sustainable development 20
sustainable development 56 governance 19
corporate social responsibility 35 climate change 16
UK innovation 187 Switzerland innovation 24
China 158 sustainability 24
climate change 84 climate change 14
governance 42 sustainable development 11
sustainable development 36 governance 9
Netherlands innovation 95 Finland innovation 28
sustainability 83 sustainability 27
sustainable development 39 circular economy 14
climate change 38 sustainability transition 12
sustainability transition 33 sustainable development 11
Germany sustainability 87 Denmark sustainability 28
innovation 84 innovation 20
climate change 26 climate change 12
sustainable development 25 ecoinnovation 7
governance 20 case studies 6
China China 92 Brazil sustainability 40
sustainability 56 innovation 30
sustainable development 49 sustainable development 26
innovation 45 Brazil 15
green innovation 20 ecoinnovation 9
Australia innovation 64 Taiwan innovation 22
sustainability 63 sustainability 19
climate change 41 green innovation 18
Australia 33 Taiwan 16
sustainable development 23 sustainable development 15
Spain innovation 76 Belgium innovation 29
sustainability 65 sustainability 17
ecoinnovation 38 sustainable development 10
corporate social responsibility 32 European union 7
Spain 27 agriculture 5
Canada innovation 78 Austria innovation 19
sustainability 58 sustainability 15
climate change 33 sustainable development 9
sustainable development 33 innovation system 6
governance 22 transdisciplinarity 6
Italy innovation 76 Norway innovation 27
sustainability 72 sustainability 21
sustainable development 28 climate change 12
SME 17 governance 9
ecoinnovation 16 politics 8
France innovation 97 Japan innovation 18
sustainability 43 sustainability 13
sustainable development 23 Japan 11 Table 3.
stakeholder 15 DEA 9 Keywords by
governance 14 climate change 7 country
K

Figure 4.
Country collaboration
(2010–2018)

among the three countries with more publications, which indicates the importance of
innovation and sustainability for the country that has grown the most in the world in the
past decades.
Table 5 shows, in a more complete way, the evolution of the publications of 25
countries in the past three decades (1990–1999, 2000–2009, 2010–2018). The following
were considered as indicators: citations per document (CPD), total papers of each
country (TPC) and percentage of documents/TPC (%). The last column presents a
consolidated result and the leadership of the USA with 2,146 published articles. The
United Kingdom stands out in first place of the ranking in Europe and China in Asia. It
should be noted that Brazil and South Africa are the only countries representing Latin
America and Africa, respectively.
Table 6 presents the productivity of the countries taking into account the number of
citations per document (CPD). In this case, the USA has 75,631 citations and 35.2 CPD. The
United Kingdom appears with 38,781 citations and 23.7 CPD.
Table 7 shows the contribution of the top 25 countries being considered: total
publications (TP); single-country publication ranking (SPR); international collaboration
publication ranking (CPR); first author publication ranking (FPR); and corresponding author
publication ranking (RPR). The result shows the leadership of the USA with 2,146 published
articles, representing 15.9%, followed by the United Kingdom with 1,639 published articles
(13 %), and The Netherlands with 892 published articles (6.6%).
Figure 5 shows an analysis of the journals. The results indicate that the Journal of
Cleaner Production leads the ranking with 650 publications, followed by Sustainability with
524 publications and Energy Policy with 206 publications. A strong dominance of the first
two journals can be observed, which shows the importance of the strength of both in the
fields of innovation and sustainability. The results also indicate the emergence of new
journals in recent decades such as Sustainability, Energy Research and Social Science and
Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions.
Table 8 shows in detail the total number of publications (TP), the number of citations, the
CPD, and the total number of publications per journal (TPJ). The results are presented by
Year Country Papers CPY Year Country Papers CPY
Scientific
mapping
2018 UK 342 112 2004 USA 29 26
USA 309 UK 17
Peoples R China 229 The Netherlands 7
2017 USA 261 92 2003 USA 21 24
UK 260 UK 13
Peoples R China 137 The Netherlands 9
2016 USA 249 97 2002 USA 16 23
UK 227 UK 9
The Netherlands 111 The Netherlands 7
2015 USA 195 94 2001 UK 18 20
UK 186 USA 18
The Netherlands 112 Canada 9
2014 USA 182 84 2000 USA 14 20
UK 131 France 7
The Netherlands 79 The Netherlands 7
2013 USA 158 75 1999 USA 15 18
UK 139 UK 9
The Netherlands 78 Canada 4
2012 USA 148 71 1998 USA 13 9
UK 107 UK 9
The Netherlands 44 Canada 4
2011 USA 100 65 1997 Italy 3 12
UK 79 USA 3
Spain 42 Canada 2
2010 USA 112 56 1996 USA 15 9
UK 76 Senegal 2
Canada 38 UK 2
2009 USA 76 54 1995 USA 11 7
UK 48 UK 3
The Netherlands 28 Canada 2
2008 USA 74 41 1994 USA 10 9
UK 32 Canada 4
The Netherlands 20 The Netherlands 4
2007 USA 57 40 1993 USA 3 6
UK 36 Canada 1
The Netherlands 20 France 1
2006 USA 38 42 1992 UK 3 5
UK 25 Israel 2
Canada 15 USA 2
2005 USA 29 27 1990 Germany 1 2
UK 28 USA 1 Table 4.
Countries with most
Note: CPY: citations per year publications

decade: 1990–1999, 2000–2009 and 2010–2018. And finally, the consolidated total for 1990–
2018 is shown.
In the last column, the consolidated results (1990–2018) are presented, highlighting the
journals with higher number of publications (TPJ) on the subject, in the following order:
Journal of Cleaner Production (5.2%), Sustainability (5.3%) and Energy Policy (2.1%).
A comparison with other scientific journals shows a greater interest in these three journals
for the topic “Innovability”.
 K

Table 5.

publications, by
citations and CPD
Countries with most
1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2018 1990–2018
Country Papers Citations CPD TPC (%) Papers Citations CPD TPC (%) Papers Citations CPD TPC (%) Papers Citations CPD TPC (%)

USA 73 5,361 73.4 2,322,292 0.003 372 31,966 85.9 2,803,377 0.013 1,701 38,304 22.5 3,343,413 0.051 2,146 75,631 35.2 8,469,082 0.025
UK 27 534 19.8 589,460 0.005 218 9,737 44.7 789,090 0.028 1,394 28,510 20.5 1,021,667 0.136 1,639 38,781 23.7 2,400,217 0.068
The Netherlands 13 1,526 117.4 154,616 0.008 125 7,694 61.6 222,987 0.056 754 17,894 23.7 322,523 0.234 892 27,114 30.4 700,126 0.127
Germany 9 311 34.6 520,654 0.002 79 5,654 71.6 723,291 0.011 619 12,662 20.5 899,539 0.069 707 18,627 26.3 2,143,484 0.033
China 1 2 2.0 128,258 0.001 33 2,512 76.1 691,347 0.005 646 9,157 14.2 2,259,843 0.029 680 11,671 17.2 3,079,448 0.022
Australia 8 234 29.3 163,687 0.005 70 3,119 44.6 265,287 0.026 557 9,278 16.7 478,614 0.116 635 12,631 19.9 907,588 0.070
Spain – – 148,854 – 67 3,132 46.7 302,241 0.022 544 8,805 16.2 484,716 0.112 611 11,937 19.5 935,811 0.065
Canada 18 2,303 127.9 309,849 0.006 86 3,664 42.6 408,861 0.021 496 10,400 21.0 555,956 0.089 600 16,367 27.3 1,274,666 0.047
Italy 5 505 101.0 234,106 0.002 40 2,516 62.9 388,726 0.010 531 8,312 15.7 534,860 0.099 576 11,333 19.7 1,157,692 0.050
France 6 117 19.5 392,682 0.002 66 2,301 34.9 525,779 0.013 410 7,114 17.4 621,984 0.066 482 9,532 19.8 1,540,445 0.031
Sweden 1 11 11.0 121,696 0.001 30 1,902 63.4 164,681 0.018 381 8,966 23.5 222,270 0.171 412 10,879 26.4 508,647 0.081
Switzerland 1 7 7.0 106,630 0.001 36 1,189 33.0 161,604 0.022 223 6,964 31.2 244,558 0.091 260 8,160 31.4 512,792 0.051
Finland 2 21 10.5 54,341 0.004 17 646 38.0 82,591 0.021 206 3,710 18.0 108,086 0.191 225 4,377 19.5 245,018 0.092
Denmark 1 20 20.0 59,928 0.002 18 392 21.8 87,588 0.021 201 4,061 20.2 144,619 0.139 220 4,473 20.3 292,135 0.075
Brazil 1 2 2.0 57,847 0.002 14 335 23.9 183,054 0.008 194 2,625 13.5 364,948 0.053 209 2,962 14.2 605,849 0.034
Taiwan – – 59,669 – 16 1,284 80.3 158,720 0.010 186 3,693 19.9 234,318 0.079 202 4,977 24.6 452,707 0.045
Belgium 2 5 2.5 75,400 0.003 16 1,244 77.8 123,397 0.013 173 4,499 26.0 181,007 0.096 191 5,748 30.1 379,804 0.050
Austria 1 1 1.0 50,678 0.002 12 552 46.0 85,775 0.014 172 3,870 22.5 127,097 0.135 185 4,423 23.9 263,550 0.070
Norway 1 – – 39,292 0.003 17 613 36.1 63,979 0.027 166 3,724 22.4 109,634 0.151 184 4,337 23.6 212,905 0.086
Japan – – 551,416 – 27 937 34.7 744,088 0.004 138 2,518 18.2 685,823 0.020 165 3,455 20.9 1,981,327 0.008
South Korea – – 56,216 – 5 389 77.8 246,651 0.002 150 1,785 11.9 473,264 0.032 155 2,174 14.0 776,131 0.020
Saudi Arabia 3 33 11.0 12,365 0.024 10 240 24.0 15,337 0.065 127 1,691 13.3 93,946 0.135 140 1,964 14.0 121,648 0.115
Ireland – – 29,501 – 15 457 30.5 54,916 0.027 112 2,063 18.4 87,467 0.128 127 2,520 19.8 171,884 0.074
Portugal – – 16,418 – 17 397 23.4 54,075 0.031 110 1,645 15.0 113,778 0.097 127 2,042 16.1 184,271 0.069
South Africa 1 10 10.0 33,335 0.003 13 512 39.4 49,124 0.026 99 1,488 15.0 103,326 0.096 113 2,010 17.8 185,785 0.061

Notes: CPD: citations per document; TPC: total of papers of each country; %: papers/TPC
 R(papers)
Scientific
Country R(papers) Citations CPD 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2018 mapping
USA 1 (2,146) 75,631 35.2 1 (73) 1 (372) 1 (1,701)
UK 2 (1,639) 38,781 23.7 2 (27) 2 (218) 2 (1,394)
The Netherlands 3 (892) 27,114 30.4 4 (13) 3 (125) 3 (754)
Germany 4 (707) 18,627 26.3 5 (9) 5 (79) 5 (619)
China 5 (680) 11,671 17.2 9 (1) 10 (33) 4 (646)
Australia 6 (635) 12,631 19.9 6 (8) 6 (70) 6 (557)
Spain 7 (611) 11,937 19.5 10 (0) 7 (67) 7 (544)
Canada 8 (600) 16,367 27.3 3 (18) 4 (86) 9 (496)
Italy 9 (576) 11,333 19.7 8 (5) 9 (40) 8 (531)
Table 6.
France 10 (482) 9,532 19.8 7 (6) 8 (66) 10 (410) Most productive
countries from 1990
Notes: R: ranking position; CPD: citations per document to 2018

Country TP (%) SPR (%) CPR (%) FPR (%) RPR (%)

USA 2,146 (15.9) 3 (0.56) 23 (0.44) 2 (0.67) 5 (0.77)

UK 1,639 (13) 25 (0.16) 1 (0.84) 8 (0.59) 7 (0.73)
The Netherlands 892 (6.6) 14 (0.43) 12 (0.57) 14 (0.54) 11 (0.69)
Germany 707 (5.2) 13 (0.44) 13 (0.56) 17 (0.53) 14 (0.67)
China 680 (5) 6 (0.51) 20 (0.49) 3 (0.66) 2 (0.81)
Australia 635 (4.7) 8 (0.47) 18 (0.53) 7 (0.59) 9 (0.72)
Spain 611 (4.5) 2 (0.58) 24 (0.42) 6 (0.6) 3 (0.8)
Canada 600 (4.4) 9 (0.46) 17 (0.54) 5 (0.61) 10 (0.71)
Italy 576 (4.3) 10 (0.45) 16 (0.55) 12 (0.56) 6 (0.76)
France 482 (3.6) 18 (0.4) 8 (0.6) 9 (0.58) 18 (0.64)
Sweden 412 (3) 15 (0.43) 11 (0.57) 24 (0.47) 15 (0.66)
Switzerland 260 (1.9) 23 (0.32) 3 (0.68) 23 (0.49) 23 (0.58)
Finland 225 (1.7) 16 (0.42) 10 (0.58) 11 (0.58) 12 (0.67)
Denmark 220 (1.6) 19 (0.39) 7 (0.61) 18 (0.53) 19 (0.64)
Brazil 209 (1.5) 7 (0.5) 19 (0.5) 10 (0.58) 8 (0.73)
Taiwan 202 (1.5) 1 (0.69) 25 (0.31) 1 (0.75) 1 (0.9)
Belgium 191 (1.4) 20 (0.38) 6 (0.62) 15 (0.54) 16 (0.65)
Austria 185 (1.4) 24 (0.32) 2 (0.68) 25 (0.46) 25 (0.56)
Norway 184 (1.4) 12 (0.44) 14 (0.56) 13 (0.56) 21 (0.63)
Japan 165 (1.2) 11 (0.45) 15 (0.55) 16 (0.53) 13 (0.67)
South Korea 155 (1.1) 5 (0.52) 21 (0.48) 4 (0.63) 4 (0.8)
Saudi Arabia 141 (1) 4 (0.54) 22 (0.46) 20 (0.52) 20 (0.64)
Ireland 127 (0.9) 22 (0.35) 4 (0.65) 19 (0.53) 17 (0.65)
Portugal 127 (0.8) 17 (0.4) 9 (0.6) 21 (0.51) 22 (0.63)
South Africa 110 (0.8) 21 (0.37) 5 (0.63) 22 (0.5) 24 (0.58)
Table 7.
Notes: TP: total publications; SPR: single-country publication rank; CPR: international collaborative Contribution of the
publication rank; FPR: first author publication rank; RPR: corresponding author publication rank top 25 countries

Figure 6 presents an analysis of the keywords. This graph visually shows the growth of
“Innovation” and “Sustainability” compared to other keywords in the past decade. It can be seen
as relevant that “Innovation” leads the ranking with 1,108 articles, followed by “Sustainability”
with 928, “Sustainable Development” with 439 and “Climate Change” with 376 published articles.
K

Figure 5.
Journal analysis

Figure 7 presents the results of the evolution of the ten main keywords from 1990 to 2018.
The graph shows the evolution of all the keywords over the period but also visually
reinforces the leadership of “Innovation” and “Sustainability” and the rather strong growth
of the subjects from 2010 onwards.
Table 8 shows the research areas with the most publications on the subject. The top four
positions are “Environmental Science” with 2,224 articles, “Environmental Studies” with
1,888 articles, “Green and Sustainable Science and Technology” with 1,468 articles and
“Management” with 1,442 articles. This result indicates that “Innovability” has been gaining
ground in business management, which would be a positive sign to the world because of the
impact it would have on natural resources (Figure 8).
Table 9 shows in detail the keywords in each research area. Sustainability leads in seven
areas such as “Environmental Science” with 324 papers and in “Environmental Studies”
with 215 papers. On the other hand, “Innovation” leads in areas such as “Management” with
210 papers and “Business” with 160 papers.
Table 10 presents the 15 most cited articles per year. It is interesting to note that in the
first position is an article from the area of “Nanosciences and Nanotechnology”, followed by
“Health Care Sciences and Services” and “Business”. This result indicates that
“Innovability” is applied in several areas of knowledge. In CPY, the article “Strategy and
society” by Porter and Kramer (2006) presents the best result with 1.25 CPY, followed by the
article “Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a
consolidated framework for advancing implementation Science” by Damschroder et al.
(2009) with 1.18 CPY. The result indicates that the article by Porter et al. is a reference for
“Innovation” and “Sustainability” and corroborates its strength in management and
business. Empirical studies confirm that ecological supply chain management practices
generate environmental and economic benefits (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004), and that innovation
must be accelerated to sustain growth (Bettencourt et al., 2007). Other studies confirm the
evidence on innovation and technology applied to sustainability, and their links to other
 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2018 1990–2018
Journal TP Citations CPD TPJ (%) TP Citations CPD TPJ (%) TP Citations CPD TPJ (%) TP Citations CPD TPJ (%)

Journal of Cleaner Production – – – 56 4,091 73.1 1,112 5.0 594 14,326 24.1 11,341 5.2 650 18,417 28.3 12,453 5.2
Sustainability – – – – – – 524 3,034 5.8 9,880 5.3 524 3,034 5.8 9,880 5.3
Energy Policy 8 192 24.0 922 0.9 34 4,205 123.7 2,714 1.3 164 4,296 26.2 6,334 2.6 206 8,693 42.2 9,970 2.1
Tech. Forecasting and Social Change 4 71 17.8 516 0.8 28 1,215 43.4 603 4.6 168 3,506 20.9 1,992 8.4 200 4,792 24.0 3,111 6.4
Journal of Business Ethics – – 1,131 – 22 1,908 86.7 2,339 0.9 84 2,580 30.7 2,971 2.8 106 4,488 42.3 6,441 1.6
Business Strategy and the Environment – – – 5 327 65.4 38 13.2 93 2,847 30.6 457 20.4 98 3,174 32.4 495 19.8
Research Policy 1 69 69.0 442 0.2 13 1,969 151.5 929 1.4 78 5,707 73.2 1,198 6.5 92 7,745 84.2 2,569 3.6
Ecological Economics 1 37 37.0 476 0.2 29 2,181 75.2 1,711 1.7 44 1,454 33.0 2,337 1.9 74 3,672 49.6 4,524 1.6
Tech. Analysis and Strategic Management 7 1,137 162.4 164 4.3 21 1,923 91.6 335 6.3 41 541 13.2 650 6.3 69 3,601 52.2 1,149 6.0
Energy Research Social Science – – – – – – 64 863 13.5 776 8.2 64 863 13.5 776 8.2
Env. Inn. and Societal Transitions – – – – – – 63 1,104 17.5 159 39.6 63 1,104 17.5 159 39.6
Ecology and Society – – – 6 723 120.5 422 1.4 47 1,287 27.4 1,552 3.0 53 2,010 37.9 1,974 2.7
Futures 4 365 91.3 728 0.5 8 312 39.0 665 1.2 41 538 13.1 823 5.0 53 1,215 22.9 2,216 2.4
Global Env. Change-Human 2 56 28.0 201 1.0 3 556 185.3 305 1.0 45 2,236 49.7 1,083 4.2 50 2,848 57.0 1,589 3.1
Int. Journal of Tech. Management 5 24 4.8 578 0.9 19 233 12.3 901 2.1 26 388 14.9 449 5.8 50 645 12.9 1,928 2.6
Technovation 4 103 25.8 430 0.9 15 1,263 84.2 789 1.9 30 702 23.4 415 7.2 49 2,068 42.2 1,634 3.0
Energy Economics 1 38 38.0 310 0.3 15 737 49.1 660 2.3 33 972 29.5 2,300 1.4 49 1,747 35.7 3,270 1.5
Journal of Business Research 2 20 10.0 585 0.3 4 411 102.8 1,287 0.3 42 612 14.6 3,120 1.3 48 1,043 21.7 4,992 1.0
Environmental Science Policy – – – 5 222 44.4 373 1.3 42 907 21.6 1,346 3.1 47 1,129 24.0 1,719 2.7
European Planning Studies – – – 7 70 10.0 625 1.1 39 465 11.9 996 3.9 46 535 11.6 1,621 2.8
Agricultural Systems 1 57 57.0 707 0.1 6 302 50.3 700 0.9 37 834 22.5 980 3.8 44 1,193 27.1 2,387 1.8
Land Use Policy – – 148 – 2 39 19.5 475 0.4 42 651 15.5 2,716 1.5 44 690 15.7 3,339 1.3
Climate Policy – – – 7 119 17.0 310 2.3 35 510 14.6 511 6.8 42 629 15.0 821 5.1
BMC Health Services Research – – – 2 44 22.0 1,043 0.2 36 343 9.5 5,225 0.7 38 387 10.2 6,268 0.6
Int. Journal of Production Economics – – 1,186 – 3 276 92.0 2,002 0.1 35 1,257 35.9 2,753 1.3 38 1,533 40.3 5,941 0.6
Design Journal – – – 1 5 5.0 16 6.3 35 33 0.9 663 5.3 36 38 1.1 679 5.3
Science and Public Policy – – – – – 6 – 36 576 16.0 565 6.4 36 576 16.0 571 6.3
CSR and Environmental Management – – – – – 57 – 35 913 26.1 332 10.5 35 913 26.1 389 9.0
Implementation Science – – – 5 2,725 545.0 193 2.6 29 614 21.2 1,142 2.5 34 3,339 98.2 1,335 2.5

Notes: TP: total number of papers on the topic; CPD: citations per document; TPJ: total number of papers of each journal; %: papers/TPJ.

Table 8.
Scientific

Journal analysis
mapping
K

Figure 6.
Keyword analysis

Figure 7.
Evolution of the top
ten keywords from
1990 to 2018

Figure 8.
Research areas
analysis
 Scientific
Research area Keyword Papers Research area Keyword Papers
mapping
Environmental sustainability 324 Engineering, sustainability 39
Sciences innovation 200 Industrial innovation 34
sustainable 154 case studies 10
development
climate change 107 stakeholder 9
ecoinnovation 71 NPD 8
Environmental sustainability 215 Health Care innovation 31
studies
innovation 179 Sciences and Services implementation 18
climate change 146 sustainability 12
sustainable 139 telemedicine 12
development
sustainability 58 diffusion of innovation 10
transition
Green and sustainability 272 Public innovation 32
sustainable
science and
technology
innovation 147 Administration climate change 24
sustainable 140 governance 17
development
ecoinnovation 61 sustainability 16
SME 55 climate policy 14
Management sustainability 210 Public, innovation 34
Environmental and
innovation 177 Occupational Health sustainability 13
sustainable 91 public health 12
development
corporate social 75 sustainable 11
responsibility development
stakeholder 60 implementation 10
Business sustainability 160 Ecology innovation 29
innovation 125 sustainability 18
corporate social 94 sustainable 15
responsibility development
sustainable 72 resilience 14
development
stakeholder 51 socialecological system 14
Economics innovation 117 Information Science innovation 30
climate change 78 and Library Science egovernment 20
sustainability 60 sustainability 14
sustainable 33 transparency 12
development
renewable 29 knowledge management 11
energy
Engineering, sustainability 131 Operations Research sustainability 32
and
Environmental innovation 66 Management Science innovation 28
sustainable 60 corporate social 11
development responsibility
ecoinnovation 44 SME 11 Table 9.
circular economy 40 GSCM 9 Keywords for each
(continued) research area
K
Research area Keyword Papers Research area Keyword Papers

Regional and innovation 48 Agriculture, innovation 38

urban planning
sustainability 47 Multidisciplinary sustainability 21
sustainable 26 agricultural innovation 13
development
climate change 24 agriculture 12
sustainability 20 food security 9
transition
Energy and fuels renewable 37 Health Policy innovation 23
energy
innovation 30 and Services implementation 17
China 22 sustainability 11
climate change 22 evaluation 6
energy transition 21 health technology 6
Geography climate change 49 Multidisciplinary sustainability 14
innovation 31 Sciences innovation 12
sustainability 26 governance 7
governance 17 responsible innovation 6
adaptation 12 strategic niche 6
Table 9. management

areas of knowledge (Markard et al., 2012). Other authors show the advances of applied
technology to improve sustainable water management (Qu et al., 2013), and that knowledge
gaps were identified in sustainable business models (Boons et al., 2013). The results
reinforce the need to converge innovation and sustainability to face the challenges of
sustainable development.
Table 11 presents an analysis by institutions and collaborations between institutions.
The result indicates that the “University of London” leads the ranking with 206 papers,
followed by the “Wageningen University Research” with 189 papers and the “University of
California System” with 188 papers. The “University of London” has achieved impressive
growth over the past decade, with 1 paper in 1990–1999, 17 papers in 2000–2009 and 188
papers in 2010–2018. The results have revealed that “University College London” is its main
collaborating institution with 40.8% of PPI. Furthermore, the results have shown the
appearance of ten new institutions in this ranking since 2000, such as “Utrecht University”,
the “University of Oxford”, “Lund University”, “University College London”, the “Institut
National De La Recherche Agronomique”, the “University of Cambridge”, the “University of
Melbourne”, “Arizona State University”, the “Chine Academy of Sciences” and “Imperial
College London”. These results confirm the importance of the topic “Innovability” for these
institutions by including it in their lines of research and also indicate a trend for the coming
years.
In summary, the results from the longitudinal review and scientific mapping on
innovation and sustainability show the links between the two concepts, and this
convergence suggests that it should be part of the strategy of organizations seeking to be
competitive and sustainable. Therefore, the concept of “innovability” is proposed as follows:
The convergence of innovation and sustainability in strategies to develop a product, process,
service, organisational change, marketing strategy, or business model (or combination thereof)
that seek greater competitiveness through sustainable practices.
No. Title Authors Journal Area Citations Year Citations % CPY

1 Commentary: The Materials Project: A Jain A et al. APL Materials Nanosciences and 1,536 2013 256.0 0.71
materials genome approach to accelerating Nanotechnology;
materials innovation Materials Sciences
2 Fostering implementation of health services Damschroder L Implementation Science Health Care Sciences and 2,539 2009 253.9 1.18
et al. Services;
research findings into practice: a Health Policy and
consolidated Services
framework for advancing implementation
science
3 Strategy and society Porter M et al. Harvard Business Review Business; Management 2,691 2006 207.0 1.25
4 Applications of nanotechnology in Xiaolei QU et al. Water Research Engineering, 831 2013 138.5 0.39
Environmental;
water and wastewater treatment Water Resources
5 Outcomes for implementation research: Proctor E et al. Administration and Policy Health Policy and 880 2011 110.0 0.41
Services;
Conceptual distinctions, measurement in Mental Health and Public, Environmental
Mental and
Challenges, and Research Agenda Health Service Research Occupational Health
6 Sustainability transitions: An emerging Markard J et al. Research Policy Management 760 2012 108.6 0.35
field of research and its prospects
7 Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic Smith W et al. Academy of Management Business; Management 728 2011 91.0 0.34
equilibrium model of organizing Review
8 Beyond the ABC: climate change Shove E et al. Environment and Environmental Studies; 816 2010 90.7 0.38
policy and theories of social change Planning Geography
9 Business models for sustainable innovation: Boons F et al. Journal of Cleaner Green and Sustainable 518 2013 86.3 0.24
Science and
state-of-the-art and steps towards a Production Technology
research agenda
10 The sharing economy: A pathway to Martin, Chris Ecological Economics Ecology; Economics; 227 2016 75.7 0.11
sustainability et al.
or a nightmarish form of neoliberal Environmental Sciences
capitalism?
(continued)
Scientific

Most cited articles

per year
Table 10.
mapping
 K

Table 10.
No. Title Authors Journal Area Citations Year Citations % CPY

11 Managing nitrogen for sustainable Zhang, Xin et al. Nature Multidisciplinary Sciences 292 2015 73.0 0.14
development
12 Growth, innovation, scaling, and the pace of Bettencourt L Proceedings of the Multidisciplinary Sciences 845 2007 70.4 0.39
life in cities et al. National Academy of
Sciences of USA
13 What is protective space? Reconsidering Smith A et al. Research Policy Management 485 2012 69.3 0.23
niches in transitions to sustainability
14 Relationships between operational practices Zhu QH et al. Journal of Operational Management; 992 2004 66.1 0.46
and Management
performance among early adopters of green Operations Research and
supply chain management practices in Management Sciences
Chinese
manufacturing enterprises
15 Knowledge networks as channels and Owen-Smith J Organization Science Management 965 2004 64.3 0.45
conduits: The effects of spillovers in the et al.
Boston biotechnology community
 1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2018 1990–2018 Main institution collaborator
Institution Country TP PP TP PP TP PP TP PP Institution Country TP PPI

University of London UK 1 0.56 17 1.28 188 2.39 206 2.20 University College London UK 84 40.8
Wageningen University The Netherlands 1 0.56 23 1.73 165 2.10 189 2.02 IITA Nigeria 9 4.8
Research
University of California USA 4 2.25 37 2.79 147 1.87 188 2.01 University of California USA 74 39.4
System Berkeley
Delft University of The Netherlands 2 1.12 22 1.66 120 1.52 144 1.54 Utrecht University Netherlands 11 7.6
Technology
Harvard University USA 3 1.69 17 1.28 101 1.28 121 1.29 Brigham Women’s Hospital USA 19 15.7
University of Manchester UK 2 1.12 13 0.98 100 1.27 115 1.23 University of Edinburgh UK 7 6.1
University of Sussex UK 2 1.12 10 0.75 102 1.30 114 1.22 AARHUS University Denmark 10 8.8
Utrecht University Netherlands 10 0.75 101 1.28 111 1.18 Delft University of Netherlands 11 9.9
Technology
University of Oxford UK 9 0.68 94 1.19 103 1.10 University of London UK 15 14.6
Erasmus University of Netherlands 1 0.56 11 0.83 81 1.03 93 0.99 Erasmus University Netherlands 25 26.9
Rotterdam Medical Center
Vrije Universiteit The Netherlands 12 0.90 74 0.94 86 0.92 Utrecht University Netherlands 9 10.5
Amsterdam
Centre National De La France 2 1.12 8 0.60 74 0.94 84 0.90 Communaute Universite France 15 17.9
Recherche Scientifique Grenoble Alpes
Lund University Sweden 9 0.68 75 0.95 84 0.90 Swiss Federal Institute of Sweden 10 11.9
Aquatic Science Tech.
University College UK 6 0.45 78 0.99 84 0.90 University of London UK 84 100.0
London
State University System USA 2 1.12 18 1.36 60 0.76 80 0.85 University of Florida USA 30 37.5
of Florida
University of Leeds UK 1 0.56 5 0.38 74 0.94 80 0.85 University of Sussex UK 6 7.5
Institut National De La France 8 0.60 69 0.88 77 0.82 AGROPARISTECH France 18 23.4
Recherche Agronomique
University of Cambridge UK 10 0.75 66 0.84 76 0.81 Delft University of Netherlands 8 10.5
Technology
(continued)

Analysis by
institutions
Scientific

Table 11.
mapping
 K

Table 11.
1990–1999 2000–2009 2010–2018 1990–2018 Main institution collaborator
Institution Country TP PP TP PP TP PP TP PP Institution Country TP PPI

University of California USA 3 1.69 15 1.13 56 0.71 74 0.79 University of California USA 74 100.0
Berkeley System
University of Melbourne Australia 8 0.60 66 0.84 74 0.79 Swinburne University of Sweden 7 9.5
Technology
Arizona State University USA 10 0.75 63 0.80 73 0.78 University of California USA 7 9.6
System
ETH Zurich Switzerland 11 0.83 59 0.75 70 0.75 Swiss Federal Institute of Sweden 4 5.7
Aquatic Science Tech.
MCGILL University The Netherlands 1 0.56 2 0.15 66 0.84 69 0.74 Wageningen University Netherlands 6 8.7
Research
Chine Academy of China 7 0.53 60 0.76 67 0.71 University of Chinese China 26 38.8
Sciences Academy of Sciences
Imperial College London UK 14 1.05 52 0.66 66 0.70 University of Edinburgh UK 6 9.1

Notes: TP: total number of papers; PP: % of the total papers in each period; PPI: participation of the main institution collaborator in institution’s publications
4. Conclusions Scientific
This section describes the conclusions, contributions, limitations and future lines of mapping
research.
Studies on innovation and sustainability have become very important in recent years,
and researchers from all over the world have played their part in advancing the frontier of
knowledge and presenting scientific papers to find solutions, for example, to increase
productivity in companies and achieve sustainable development (Afshar et al., 2017;
Barcellos de Paula and Marins, 2018; Carayannis and Campbell, 2019; Prouty et al., 2018). In
this context, the article deepened the discussion related to these issues by looking for
alternatives to these challenges through the bibliometric mapping of 32 keywords between
1990 and 2018, to check if there is a terminological integration between the two concepts.
As for the results, the analysis revealed a positive trend in publications on innovation
and sustainability, with the USA as the country with the most scientific collaborations, the
growth of research lines linked to business management and the emergence of specialized
journals on the subjects. The emergence of new institutions dedicated to researching these
subjects also verified the appearance of new researchers, which indicates the strengthening
and continuity of these research lines. The most relevant conclusion of the study confirmed
the convergence of the two terms, and in the new intellectual dimensions that are emerging
around them, for example, in business administration (Boons et al., 2013), ecological supply
chain management (Zhu and Sarkis, 2004) and sustainable water management (Qu et al.,
2013). Innovation and technology applied to sustainability and their links to other areas of
knowledge were also identified (Qu et al., 2013).
As contributions, at the academic level, the manuscript advanced the frontier of
knowledge by deepening studies on innovation and sustainability through bibliometric
analysis, which helped to understand the evolution and trends of research on innovation,
sustainability, sustainable development and climate change. The bibliometric mapping
results strengthen the proposal of a new concept that was named innovability. At the
business level, this concept can increase companies’ competitive advantage with solutions
based on innovation and sustainability. At the societal level, the study contributes to SDGs
by promoting initiatives that reduce industrialization problems such as global warming and
pollution through innovation. Finally, the study may be useful as a guide for new
researchers interested in these topics. The most important limitation concerns the number of
keywords included in the analysis. Future lines of research are open to topics such as
innovation applied to sustainability.

Note
1. This study is the extension of a presentation made by both authors at the Alicante Congress in
January 2020: 7th Business Systems Laboratory International Symposium – Socio-economic
Ecosystems: Challenges for Sustainable Development in the Digital Era.

References
Afshar, J., Brem, A. and Bhattacharjee, A. (2017), “Who takes more sustainability-oriented
entrepreneurial actions? The role of entrepreneurs’ values, beliefs and orientations”,
Sustainability, Vol. 9 No. 10, p. 1636.
Arranz, N., Arroyabe, M.F., Molina-García, A. and Fernandez de Arroyabe, J.C. (2019), “Incentives and
inhibiting factors of eco-innovation in the Spanish firms”, Journal of Cleaner Production,
Vol. 220, pp. 167-176.
K Barcellos de Paula, L. and Marins, F.A.S. (2018), “Algorithms applied in decision-making for
sustainable transport”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 176, pp. 1133-1143.
Bettencourt, L.M.A., Lobo, J., Helbing, D., Kuhnert, C. and West, G.B. (2007), “Growth, innovation,
scaling, and the pace of life in cities”, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 104
No. 17, pp. 7301-7306.
Bitso, C., Makori, E.O. and Kapondera, S.K. (2020), “Research data management and scientific evidence:
a strategic imperative for SDGs”, in Ramutsindela, M. and Mickler, D. (Eds), Africa and the
Sustainable Development Goals, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 103-112.
Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H. and Moedas, C. (2018), “Open innovation. Research, practices and policies”,
California Management Review, Vol. 60 No. 2, pp. 5-16.
Boons, F., Montalvo, C., Quist, J. and Wagner, M. (2013), “Sustainable innovation, business models and
economic performance: an overview”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 45, pp. 1-8.
Bordons, M. and Zulueta, M. (1999), “Evaluacion de la actividad científica a través de indicadores
bibliométricos”, Revista Española de Cardiología, Vol. 52 No. 10, pp. 790-800.
Carayannis, E.G. and Campbell, D.F.J. (2019), Smart Quintuple Helix Innovation Systems. How Social
Ecology and Environmental Protection Are Driving Innovation, Sustainable Development and
Economic Growth, Springer, Cham.
Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from
Technology, Harvard Business School Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Chinchilla-Rodríguez, Z., Bu, Y., Robinson-García, N., Costas, R. and Sugimoto, C.R. (2018), “Travel
bans and scientific mobility: utility of asymmetry and affinity indexes to inform science policy”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 116 No. 1, pp. 569-590.
Coad, A. (2019), “Persistent heterogeneity of R&D intensities within sectors: evidence and policy
implications”, Research Policy, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Costas, R., van Leeuwen, T.N. and Bordons, M. (2010), “Self-citations at the meso and individual levels:
effects of different calculation methods”, Scientometrics, Vol. 82 No. 3, pp. 517-537.
Damschroder, L.J., Aron, D.C., Keith, R.E., Kirsh, S.R., Alexander, J.A. and Lowery, J.C. (2009),
“Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated
framework for advancing implementation science”, Implementation Science, Vol. 4 No. 1, p. 50.
De la Vega Hernandez, I.M. and Barcellos de Paula, L. (2019), “The quintuple helix innovation model
and brain circulation in Central, emerging and peripheral countries”, Kybernetes, doi: 10.1108/K-
08-2019-0522.
De la Vega, I., Puente, J.M. and Sanchez R, M. (2019), “The collapse of Venezuela vs. The sustainable
development of selected South American countries”, Sustainability, Vol. 11 No. 12, p. 3406.
Dosi, G. (Ed.) (1990), Technical Change and Economic Theory, Repr, Pinter, London.
Drucker, P. (1985), Innovation and Entrepreneurship, HarperCollins Publishers.
Elkington, J. (1994), “Towards the sustainable Corporation: Win-Win-Win business strategies for
sustainable development”, California Management Review, Vol. 36 No. 2, pp. 90-100.
Freeman, C. (1974), “La teoría economica de La innovacion industrial, Alianza”, available at: https://
books.google.com.pe/books?id=vPPpAAAACAAJ
Freeman, C. (1987), Technology, Policy, and Economic Performance: Lessons from Japan, Pinter
Publishers, London; New York, NY.
Freeman, E. (1984), Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Pitman Series in Business and
Public Policy.
Freeman, E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B. and De Colle, S. (2010), Stakeholder Theory: The State of
the Art, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, NY.
Godin, B. (2012), “Social innovation: Utopias of innovation from 1830 to the present. Project on the
intellectual history of innovation”, Working paper N° 11, INRS, Montreal.
Hart, S.L. and Milstein, M.B. (2003), “Creating sustainable value”, Academy of Management Scientific
Perspectives, Vol. 17 No. 2, pp. 56-67.
mapping
Keisler, J.M., Collier, Z.A., Ayyub, B., Dempwolf, C.S., MacDonald Gibson, J., Porter, A., Schweizer, V.J.,
Thorisson, H., Wang, L., Ye, M. and Lambert, J.H. (2020), “Modeling and analytics to support
emerging international innovation partnerships”, IEEE Engineering Management Review,
pp. 1-1.
Lundvall, B. (1988), Innovation as an Interactive Process: From User-Producer Interaction to the
National Innovation Systems, Pinter Publishers.
Markard, J., Raven, R. and Truffer, B. (2012), “Sustainability transitions: an emerging field of research
and its prospects”, Research Policy, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 955-967.
Nelson, R.R. and Winter, S. (1982), An Evolutionary Theory of Economic Change, The Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
OECD and Eurostat (2019), Oslo Manual 2018: Guidelines for Collecting, Reporting and Using Data on
Innovation, 4th ed., OECD, available at: https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264304604-en
Peng, C.-H., Wu, L.-L., Wei, C.-P. and Chang, C.-M. (2020), “Intrafirm network structure and firm
innovation performance: the moderating role of environmental uncertainty”, IEEE Transactions
on Engineering Management, IEEE, pp. 1-12.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2002), “The competitive advantage and corporate philanthropy”, Harvard
Business Review, Vol. 80 No. 12, pp. 55-69.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2006), “Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 78-93.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2007), “Strategy and society: the link between competitive advantage and
corporate social responsibility”, Strategic Direction, Vol. 23 No. 5. sd.2007.05623ead.006.
Porter, M. and Kramer, M. (2011), “Creating shared value”, Harvard Business Review, pp. 1-17.
Prouty, C., Mohebbi, S. and Zhang, Q. (2018), “Socio-technical strategies and behavior change to
increase the adoption and sustainability of wastewater resource recovery systems”, Water
Research, Vol. 137, pp. 107-119.
Qu, X., Alvarez, P.J.J. and Li, Q. (2013), “Applications of nanotechnology in water and wastewater
treatment”, Water Research, Vol. 47 No. 12, pp. 3931-3946.
Schick, A., Hobson, P.R. and Ibisch, P.L. (2017), “Conservation and sustainable development in a VUCA
world: the need for a systemic and ecosystem-based approach”, Ecosystem Health and
Sustainability, Vol. 3 No. 4, p. e01267.
Schultz, T. (1961), “Investment in human capital”, America Economic Review, Vol. 51, pp. 1-17.
Schumpeter, J. (1934), The Theory of Economic Development, Harvard University Press, Cambridge,
MA. First published in German in 1911.
Schumpeter, J. (1942), Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, George Allen and Unwin, New York, NY.
Seijo, G.L. (2016), “The complexities of corporate science and technology development: the triple
uncertainty analytical framework”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, Vol. 28
No. 7, pp. 841-856.
Solow, R. (1956), “A contribution to the theory of economic growth”, The Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 70 No. 1, pp. 65-94.
Solow, R. (1957), “Technical change and the aggregate production function”, The Review of Economics
and Statistics, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 312-320.
Strand, R., Saltelli, A., Giampietro, M., Rommetveit, K. and Funtowicz, S. (2018), “New narratives for
innovation”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 197, pp. 1849-1853.
United Nations (2015), “Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development”,
available at: www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/development-agenda/
K Van Raan, A. (1999), “Advanced bibliometric methods for the evaluation of universities”,
Scientometrics, Vol. 45 No. 3, pp. 417-423.
WCED (Ed.) (1987), Our Common Future, Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York, NY.
WIPO (2020), “World intellectual property organization”, available at: www.wipo.int/about-wipo/en/
history.html
Zhu, Q. and Sarkis, J. (2004), “Relationships between operational practices and performance among
early adopters of green supply chain management practices in Chinese manufacturing
enterprises”, Journal of Operations Management, Vol. 22 No. 3, pp. 265-289.

Corresponding author
Ivan Manuel De la Vega Hernandez can be contacted at: idelavega@pucp.edu.pe

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com