Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2018) xxx-xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

F
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com

OO
Review

Innovations for sustainable development: Moving toward a sustainable future

Bruno S. Silvestrea, ∗, Diana Mihaela Țîrcăb
a

PR
Asper School of Business, University of Manitoba, 181 Freedman Crescent, Winnipeg, MB, MB R3T, Canada
b
“Constantin Brancusi” University of Targu-Jiu, Faculty of Economics, Tineretului Street, No. 4, Targu-Jiu, Gorj, 210185, Romania

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article history: The view that innovation is a key driver for sustainability is widely accepted among scholars, industry pro-
Received 20 April 2018 fessionals, and government representatives. This is due to the fact that sustainable development is a pressing
Received in revised form 26 September 2018

ED
issue that requires immediate action and changes from governments, industry, and society as whole. This arti-
Accepted 28 September 2018
cle reviews the literature on innovations that can lead to transformations in individuals, organizations, supply
Available online xxx
chains, and communities toward a sustainable future. Although many of the articles explored in this review
Handling Editor: Cecilia Maria Villas Bôas report on existing urgent environmental and social issues, their findings, recommendations, and contributions
de Almeida
are encouraging as we make progress toward a sustainable society through innovation and change. This ar-
ticle reviews the diversity of innovation for Sustainable Development in the literature, proposes a typology
Keywords: of such a phenomenon, provides an overview of key articles based on the primary subjects they address, and
identifies a series of recommendations for the future development of the field.
CT
Innovations
Sustainable development © 2018.
Sustainable innovation
Environmental dimensions
Social dimensions
Triple bottom line
RE

1. Introduction environmental dimensions of sustainability. Elkington (1997), using

the so-called “triple bottom line,” suggests that equal consideration
Sustainable Development (SD) has been receiving growing atten- should be given to financial, environmental, and social dimensions
tion from academics, industry representatives and policy-makers (e.g., when making business and policy decisions. Some studies observe
United Nations, 2016; European Union, 2014). One of the key ar- that the sustainability discourse has evolved from the relationship be-
eas that has been addressed by the SD discourse is the role of inno- tween economic and environmental parameters to also include social
vations in enhancing sustainability (Silvestre and Silva Neto, 2014a). impacts (Seuring and Muller, 2008). Buchholz et al. (2007) similarly
R

Since innovations are constantly changing the external environment recognize the need to analyze the complex interactions between all
and our way of life (Huisingh et al., 2013), they are key elements three dimensions; they conclude that the evolving nature of sustain-
through which organizations, supply chains, institutions, communi- ability requires an adaptive process that involves the active participa-
CO

ties, regions, and countries can implement sustainability (Silvestre, tion of all stakeholders. However, since studies are diverse in terms of
2015a). In fact, the literature acknowledges that sustainability should the definition of innovation for SD, this introductory article and indeed
be tackled based on innovation-centered approaches (Silvestre, the entire Special Volume aims to contribute to narrowing the existing
2015b). However, in practice, the pace of change towards a more sus- gap in this knowledge area.
tainable world seems to be frustratingly slow, and there are urgent The paper proceeds as follows. First, we review the literature asso-
calls for further investments and initiatives from organizations, educa- ciated with the topic of sustainability, which is then used as a base to
tional institutions, and governments to implement innovative multidis- propose a typology of innovation for SD, based on the three key pil-
UN

ciplinary approaches to resolve our current and pressing sustainability lars of sustainability (financial, environmental, and social). Second, a
challenges (Almeida et al., 2013). brief overview of each of the papers published in this Special Volume
The Brundland Commission's (WCED, 1987) seminal definition is presented according to the primary area that each one of them ad-
of SD emphasizes the interdependence among social, economic, and dresses (i.e., new technologies for SD, new management practices for
SD, and new policy approaches for SD). Third, the paper concludes
with a discussion on how this Special Volume contributes to the litera-
∗ ture, and identifies trends for future research within the innovation for
Corresponding author.
SD discourse.
Email address: b.silvestre@umanitoba.ca (B.S. Silvestre)

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.09.244
0959-6526/ © 2018.
2 Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2018) xxx-xxx

2. Innovation for sustainable development network. Innovations that are not historically binding with the previ-
ous path may diminish the existing positive network effect externali-
The process of innovation development and adoption is perceived ties and may generate high switching costs.
to have at least three fundamental characteristics: complexity, dy- An important benefit of conceptualizing different innovations for
namism, and uncertainty. The innovation process is complex because SD in terms of the key challenges they address is the potential it pro-
it typically deals with a large number of interconnected factors that vides to examine the complexity of these phenomena and their im-

F
impact, or are impacted by, the other factors (Hall et al., 2012a). When plications for society. Research on innovation for SD is complex and
complexity is high, it is difficult to identify the characteristics of the rich, reflecting the different perspectives and interests that emerge in

OO
entire system, as the nature and connections of the interacting fac- different communities (Franceschini et al., 2016). Drawing from the
tors can easily be missed or misunderstood (Anderson, 1999). The in- literature, this paper suggests that the most pressing issues of sus-
novation process is dynamic because these interacting factors change tainability pertain to environmental challenges and social challenges
and evolve over time, and this can lead to changing contexts that (Hilgartner and Bosk, 1988; Epstein and Buhovac, 2014). To that end,
may make an innovation unviable, or may produce unintended out- we now introduce these two key challenges and the resulting typology
comes within a short period of time (Utterback, 1994). As a result of innovations for SD.
of these two characteristics, the innovation process is also uncertain
(Freeman, 1982). That is, the complexity and dynamism of the inno- 2.1. Environmental challenges

PR
vation process make it a very uncertain initiative in terms of its moti-
vations, goals, and outcomes. A frequent issue discussed in the recent years, which prevents us
Innovation uncertainty is a very well explored topic in the liter- as a society from pursuing a sustainable development trajectory, is
ature. For example, the TCOS framework (Hall and Martin, 2005) related to the environmental challenges the world is currently fac-
helps managers and scholars to understand how organizations, sup- ing. These challenges include, for example, air and water pollution
ply chains, and communities can better address uncertainties associ- (Greenstone and Hanna, 2014), waste disposal and management
ated with innovations. The TCOS framework proposes that there are (Calcott and Walls, 2000), ozone layer depletion (Canan et al., 2015),

ED
four types of innovation uncertainty that must be carefully addressed: and as a result, and perhaps most importantly, climate change (Huang
a) technological feasibility (i.e., existence or not, and possibility to de- et al., 2016).
velop the required technology); b) commercial viability (existence or Prior research on environmental challenges has examined how en-
not, and possibility to create a market for the innovation); c) organi- vironmental changes impact our way of life. For instance, Zachariadis
zational appropriability (i.e., the potential to appropriate the benefits (2016) argues that climate change itself is responsible for a wide range
of the innovation and how difficult it is for competitors to imitate the of consequences, such as sea-level rise, ocean acidification, droughts,
innovation); and d) societal acceptability (i.e., the potential to have the glaciers loss, and increased frequency of extreme weather events such
CT
innovation accepted by society given its societal side-effects, includ- as heat waves, floods, storms, and hurricanes. Besides these severe
ing environmental, social, cultural, and political implications). consequences, Wheeler and Von Braun (2013) also argue that climate
Innovation for sustainable development (SD) is a newer phenom- change impacts crop productivity and brings consequences for food
enon, but its development and implementation are equally complex, availability, which could potentially interrupt food supply chains and
dynamic, and uncertain as other types of innovations (Seyfang and our progress toward a world without hunger. From such prior research,
Smith, 2007). The literature converges to the fact that enhanced sus- it is generally recognized that environmental challenges are often as-
RE

tainability performance cannot be achieved without innovations sociated with the way we live and consume, which impact the other
(Silvestre, 2015a). This is because achieving enhanced sustainability two dimensions of sustainability (i.e., the natural environment dimen-
performance requires adaptation and change in processes, products, sion is impacted by and impacts both the economic and social dimen-
management approaches, and policy orientations. Therefore, change sions).
is a fundamental element for organizations, supply chains, and com- To address these environmental challenges, scholars, industry, and
munities as they evolve on their sustainability trajectory. Sustainable civil society have been discussing and proposing approaches and
R

innovations that are continuously adopted improve specific organiza- mechanisms that could mitigate or remove the impact of the activities
tions and the entire supply chain's sustainability trajectory, allowing of organizations, supply chains, and communities on the natural en-
them to achieve superior sustainability performance. vironment. Research and practice converge to the fact that to achieve
Sustainability trajectories are the paths organizations, supply superior environmental performance organizations, supply chains, and
CO

chains, and communities take to become more sustainable through in- communities must align all their internal processes (including their de-
novations (Silvestre, 2015a). Whether an innovation is incremental cision making processes) to focus on the impact of their activities on
or radical, whether it focuses on processes or products, and whether the natural environment (Joyce and Paquin, 2016). This is what the lit-
it is new to the organization, or to the industry, or to the world erature refers to as green operations (Nunes and Bennett, 2010) and
(Schumpeter, 1934), it is always bounded by what economists call green supply chains (Srivastava, 2007; Wong et al., 2012). Adopting
path dependence. Path dependence refers to the series of contextual such a perspective in a coherent and comprehensive way facilitates the
and historical elements that together influence decision makers to go emergence of green business models (Nair and Paulose, 2014), where
UN

in one direction or another (Martin and Sunley, 2006). That is, in- the focus of the organization, supply chain, or community is to reduce
novation decisions that need to be made will be bounded by the de- or eliminate the impact of their activities on the natural environment.
cisions that have been made in the past. Aghion et al. (2014) ar- However, green operations, green supply chains, and green busi-
gue that when developing and adopting innovation for SD, path de- ness models cannot be considered in isolation from innovation.
pendence often emerges due to existing powerful network effects Changes and innovations are central elements that will allow com-
and high switching costs. For example, innovations developed and panies to enhance their environmental performance and consequently
adopted by a firm may very well be selected because of the existing evolve on their sustainability trajectory (Silvestre, 2015a). For this to
complementarities with other assets inside the firm or in its supply happen, the availability of the innovation (i.e., technology, product,
 Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2018) xxx-xxx 3

processes, business practices, or policy approach) is not enough isting technologies and knowledge to meet specific economic, envi-
(Silvestre and Silva Neto, 2014b). The willingness to adopt such an ronmental, and social needs (Schumpeter, 1934). The extent to which
innovation and to truly incorporate it into business processes (i.e., to a given innovation addresses the environmental and social challenges
change) are also mandatory for the success of the initiative. These of sustainability varies. We use illustrative combinations of a high or
paths to green approaches require changes in the mindset of top man- low emphasis on environmental and social challenges to illustrate, in
agement and staff within those organizations. a simple and bounded way, how they vary and their implications for

F
the future of the planet. The result is a typology (see Fig. 1) with four
2.2. Social challenges distinct types of innovations: traditional, green, social, and sustainable

OO
innovations.
Another pressing issue which prevents us from achieving a satis- Based on the theoretical model proposed in Fig. 1, an innovation
factory sustainable development trajectory is the social challenge that with a low emphasis on both environmental and social challenges is
the world is currently facing. This challenge includes, for example, labelled a traditional innovation. This type of innovation is consistent
poverty (Bush, 2010), social exclusion (Hall et al., 2012b), corruption with the traditional profit maximizing paradigm, where little attention
(Silvestre et al., 2018), human rights (Giuliani, 2016), and war and dis- is given to the potential side effects of an innovation (for a critique
ordered immigration (Ousey and Kubrin, 2018). of the traditional paradigm, see Dyck and Silvestre, 2018a). The per-
Prior research on social challenges has examined how this dimen- tinent economic literature relates this type of innovation to the theory

PR
sion impacts our lives as a society (Govindan et al., 2014). For in- of the firm, where it is assumed that firms innovate as they attempt to
stance, McAra and McVie (2016) show that violence is strongly asso- maximize profits and financial outcomes (Jensen, 1988; McWilliams
ciated with poverty at the household and neighborhood levels. Khan and Siegel, 2001). For example, Teece's (1986) famous framework
et al. (2010) also argue that poverty is one of the reasons that women primarily explored why and how imitation may prevent innovators
are forced into prostitution, while Shively (2004) reinforces the idea from obtaining significant economic returns from their innovations,
that the poor are both agents of forest degradation and victims of for- which implies a sole focus on the economic dimension and financial
est loss. From such prior research it is generally understood that so- returns of innovations.

ED
cial challenges also impact on, and are impacted by, the other two di- The second type of innovation—green innovation—places a high
mensions of sustainability (i.e., economic and environmental), imply- emphasis on environmental challenges, but a low emphasis on so-
ing that these three dimensions are strongly interconnected. cial challenges. While the goal is to maximize positive environmen-
Scholars, industry, and civil society have been discussing and tal outcomes is laudable, the economic feasibility for such innova-
proposing strategies to address these social challenges. Similar to the tion must also be achieved. The literature offers a series of related
environmental discussion, research and practice on social challenges terms that are often used interchangeably as synonyms for “green in-
converge to the fact that to achieve superior social performance it is novation” (Chen et al., 2006), including “environmental innovation”
CT
necessary to align all internal processes (including decision making (Beise and Rennings, 2005), “eco”, “ecological” or “eco-efficient in-
processes) to focus on the impact of their activities on society (Matos novation” (Yenipazarli, 2017), “low-carbon innovation” (Uyarra et
and Silvestre, 2013). This is what the literature most often refers to as al., 2016), and “externality reducing innovation” (Dyck and Silvestre,
corporate social responsibility or CSR (Schrempf-Stirling et al., 2016; 2018b). Studies define this type of innovation as new products, ser-
Dahlsrud, 2008). Adopting such a perspective in a coherent and com- vices, and processes which significantly decrease environmental im-
prehensive way can allow the emergence of social business models pacts (Fussler and James, 1996; Bartlett and Trifilova, 2010); this
RE

(Yunus et al., 2010) where the focus of the organization, supply chain, clearly places their primary focus on the environmental dimension of
or community is concentrated on reducing or eliminating the impact sustainability.
of their activities on society.
Although social initiatives in operations and supply chains may
have different motivations and may engage different stakeholder
groups (Morais and Silvestre, 2018), they also cannot be considered
R

in isolation from innovation (van der Have and Rubalcaba, 2016).

Changes and innovations are equally central to the process compa-
nies undertake to enhance their social performance and consequently
evolve on their sustainability trajectory (Silvestre, 2015a). Similar to
CO

green innovations, the simple availability of social innovation is not

sufficient (Cajaiba-Santana, 2014). A willingness to adopt and truly
incorporate such innovations into business processes (i.e., the willing-
ness to change) is also necessary. These paths to socially responsible
behavior also require changes in the mindset of top management and
staff within organizations.
UN

3. A typology of innovation for sustainable development

Based on these two key dimensions of SD, a typology of innova-

tion for SD is proposed as a way to describe how these innovations
vary in terms of their nature and the primary challenges they aim to
address. The notion of innovation adopted in this paper refers to ini-
tiatives that are new to the firm/organization that is adopting them. It
is often associated in the literature with the ability to recombine ex

Fig. 1. Typology of innovations for sustainable development.

4 Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2018) xxx-xxx

The third type of innovation—social innovation—prioritizes social paradigm called Sustainable Innovation 2.0 that seeks to enhance pos-
challenges, but puts a lower emphasis on economic and environmental itive socio-ecological externalities while maintaining financial viabil-
concerns. Again, while the goal to maximize social outcomes is laud- ity. Neutzling et al. (2018) analyze how sustainable innovations in-
able, the economic feasibility for such innovations cannot be ignored. fluence inter-organizational relationships in sustainable supply chain
The literature argues that social innovations often aim to contribute to management. de Vargas Mores et al. (2018) explore the innovation
of green plastic (which is made using ethanol from sugarcane) and

F
the welfare of society and improve social capital (Dawson and Daniel,
2010; Morais and Silvestre, 2018). Social objectives are the usual dri- suggest that collaborations among supply chain members is critical
vers behind social innovation (Mulgan, 2006), and these objectives for product development in supply chains. Hong et al. (2018) empir-

OO
are designed to provide disruption within existing social systems (via ically investigate the impact of sustainable supply chain management
changes in their internal institutional logics, norms, and traditions) as (SSCM) practices on a supply chain's dynamic capabilities and enter-
a reaction to the negative social externalities of such existing systems prise performance; they report a significant positive effect.
(Nicholls and Murdock, 2012). Rantala et al. (2018) investigated sustainability factors behind the
The fourth type of innovation—sustainable innovation—empha- adoption innovations for SD and found that the more an organiza-
sizes both environmental and social concerns. This type of innova- tion values the economic dimension of sustainability, the greater the
tion includes synonymous terms such as “sustainability-oriented inno- likelihood that it will adopt sustainable innovations. Przychodzen and
vation” (e.g., Adams et al., 2016) and “socio-ecological innovation” Przychodzen (2018) explore the factors that differentiate and appear to

PR
(e.g., Edgeman and Eskildsen, 2014). In this type of innovation, there contribute to sustainable innovations at the firm level. They found that
is no attempt to maximize one single dimension; rather, a satisfactory sustainable innovation activity is strongly and statistically associated
solution should be targeted (Hall et al., 2012a), and compromises are with the sector in which they operate, i.e., sectors with a high level of
likely to be required in all three dimensions. This type of innovation environmental footprint are likely to innovate for SD in a more fre-
is consistent with the triple bottom line of sustainability (Elkington, quent fashion. Boscoianu et al. (2018) combine the dynamic capabili-
1997), and it places equal emphasis on the three pillars of sustainabil- ties perspective with the paradigm of real options in a framework that
ity: economic, environmental, and social. Hall and Vredenburg (2003) proposes the active control over the extended performance of what
they call the “innovation enterprise.” Behnam et al. (2018) identify

ED
argue that this type of innovation is difficult and risky because it is of-
ten “more complex (because there is typically a wider range of stake- and conceptualize four bundles of sustainable innovation capabilities
holders) and more ambiguous (as many of the parties have contradic- and reveal that for radical innovations, capability reconciliation is re-
tory demands)” than other types of innovations. quired for all key stakeholders involved. Berkowitz (2018) argues that
organizing practices are necessary for the development and diffusion
4. An overview of the papers in the Special Volume of innovations for SD, and proposes a meta-organization approach for
the governance of sustainable innovations.
CT
This Special Volume (SV) aims to advance a multidisciplinary dis- Two of the 12 articles concerned with new management practices
cussion of innovation for SD and be a vehicle for information ex- for SD focus primarily on the environmental dimension. Motta et al.
change and the reporting of research results in this area. In so doing, it (2018) offer a conceptual approach and an illustrative case study on
should assist in the consolidation and integration of innovation prac- the perception of international researchers and practitioners regard-
tices and mechanisms that further contribute to the world's sustainable ing the relationship between eco-innovation and life cycle assessment
development. This SV is organized by the Journal of Cleaner Produc- (LCA). Saieg et al. (2018) propose an approach to integrate multiple
RE

tion and the 3rd International Conference “Information Society and sparse sustainability technologies, methods, and concepts used in the
Sustainable Development.” It includes articles that were presented at construction industry by proposing a way in which concepts could co-
the conference as well as some additional articles that were strongly exist and complement each other.
connected to the topics of innovations for sustainable development.
More than 90 articles were submitted, and 28 of them have been 4.2. Subject 2: new technologies for sustainable development
accepted for publication. In these 28 articles, three key interrelated ar-
R

eas are identified that allow organizations, supply chains, communi- Eight of the 28 accepted articles focus on new technologies for sus-
ties, and countries to innovate for sustainable development (SD): new tainable development, and three of them address both environmental
management practices for SD, new technologies for SD, and new pol- and social challenges in different contexts. Zulfiqar and Thapa (2018)
explore the “better cotton” technology introduced by the Better Cotton
CO

icy approaches for SD. Articles were classified based on the primary
approach they addressed (i.e., technology, management, or policy), al- Initiative (BCI) in Pakistan and suggest that the promotion and adop-
though we acknowledge that some articles touch on more than one tion of innovations for SD requires careful assessment of the nature of
area (and sometimes all three): technology. Bechtsis et al. (2018) propose a framework to support ef-
fective integration of Intelligent Autonomous Vehicles (IAVs) in sup-
4.1. Subject 1: new management practices for sustainable ply chains; their results indicate that the flexibility resulting from the
development IAV architecture enables a more dynamic reconfiguration of SC net-
works. D'Avanzo et al. (2018) propose a framework to support sus-
UN

Twelve of the 28 articles focus on new management practices tainable orthodontic decision-making for solid residues and confirm
for sustainable development; 10 of these 12 also address both en- that the proposed sustainable model minimizes costs, dramatically re-
vironmental and social challenges in different contexts. Hall et al. duces the environmental impact, and increases patient satisfaction.
(2018) argue that more emphasis should be given to downstream com- Five of the 8 articles concerned with new technologies for SD
mercialization of sustainable innovations, since regulatory approval focus primarily on the environmental side of innovations for SD.
costs and other commercialization costs can have a significant im- Marcilio et al. (2018) explored the behavior of supply chain envi-
pact on their diffusion. Dyck and Silvestre (2018b) propose a new ronmental performance in a road freight transportation system and
found that green consumer pressure is more likely to influence the
 Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2018) xxx-xxx 5

adoption of innovation for SD than other internal factors (e.g., type of crease the share of renewable energy technologies in the energy mix
vehicle available, fleet age or drivers' behavior). He and Zhan (2018) to reduce the environmental impact.
explore the challenges that inhibit the mass adoption of electric vehi- As can be observed in Table 1, the vast majority of the papers
cles (EVs) which are designed to reduce the consumption of fossil fu- across the three subjects (i.e., management, technology, and policy)
els and the emission of greenhouse gases. Dobrotă and Dobrotă (2018) describe sustainable innovation approaches (last column of Table 1)
explore a technology that enables a higher recovery of rubber waste, which simultaneously considers both the environmental and social di-

F
which offers a clear improvement in terms of sustainable development mensions of sustainability and their implications. This is the case for
indicators. Laiola and Giungato (2018) explore the potential of the city the management subject (first row of Table 1), where the majority of

OO
of Taranto, Italy, for the implementation of an urban wind energy sys- the papers emphasize both environmental and social dimensions of
tem, which is emerging as a useful technology for the diffusion of sustainability and their implications. By contrast, the technology sub-
smart grids. Zorpas et al. (2018a) analyzed food waste and green waste ject (second row of Table 1) seems to focus more on the environmen-
generated from households and found that certain prevention activities tal dimension of sustainability, while social challenges are not the fo-
(e.g., home composting, public awareness events, preparing food from cus of any paper. The policy subject (third row of Table 1) is more
leftovers) can produce a high quality natural fertilizer for in-situ home dispersed in terms of approaches, having representative papers in all
use. 3 categories (i.e., environmental, social and sustainable). As expected,
given the nature of this Special Volume, traditional innovations per-

PR
4.3. Subject 3: new policy approaches for sustainable development spectives (lower left quadrant of the proposed typology (see Fig. 1 pre-
sented earlier) were not considered a good fit.
Of the 28 articles accepted, eight focus on new policy approaches
for sustainable development, and four of these address both environ- 5. What has been learned
mental and social challenges in different contexts. López-Iglesias et
al. (2018) analyze the case of Valdeorras (Galicia, Spain) and ex- Although each one of these three specific types of innovations for
plore different alternatives for public investment in sustainable mo- SD (i.e., green, social, and sustainable) focuses on key challenges and

ED
bility in rural areas; they also identify the potential benefits of ex- contributes in important ways for a sustainable future, there is a need
ploiting currently under-utilized transportation assets. Melane-Lavado to move research and practice toward a more comprehensive view of
et al. (2018) correlate foreign direct investment (FDI) and innovation sustainability discourse and practice. There is a need for more holistic
for sustainable development in small- and medium-sized enterprises; approaches to SD (i.e., approaches considering all three dimensions of
their results indicate that FDI can generate positive spillovers in man- the triple bottom line). More specifically, it is important to move to-
ufacturing, especially when innovation policies and public funding ward approaches to sustainable innovations (Fig. 1), which simultane-
for innovation are in place. Navamuel et al. (2018) argue that poli- ously address the social, environmental, and economic challenges and
CT
cies oriented towards efficiency in residential consumption have been the implications of such challenges.
implemented in Spain, but since urban sprawl has been occurring This paper offers three key contributions to the literature. First,
rapidly, electricity demand is likely to increase in the following years. since innovation uncertainty still remains as one of the most impor-
Blanco-Cerradelo et al. (2017) propose an approach to enhance the tant issues that prevents innovations for SD from being developed,
tourist competitiveness of protected areas in Spain. Their results sug- adopted, and diffused, it is important to connect the innovation for
gest that the tourist competitiveness of protected areas involves five
RE

key dimensions: capability to attract visitors, social welfare of the lo-

cal community, the preservation of nature in the park, the existence of Table 1
Studies in the Special Volume.
a sense of community, and the economic welfare of the local commu-
nity. Environmental Social Sustainable
Two papers are concerned primarily with the social challenges of
innovations for sustainable development. Picatoste et al. (2018) assess MAN Motta et al. (2018) Hall et al. (2018)
R

Saieg et al. (2018) Dyck and Silvestre

citizens' acceptance of restrictive policies on public health expendi- (2018b)
tures due to an economic crisis. Their results show a general disagree- Neutzling et al. (2018)
ment with the cuts in public health expenditures but in a level strongly Hong et al. (2018)
CO

related with citizens' own perceptions. Zorpas et al. (2018b) explore Rantala et al. (2018)
Przychodzen and
the expansion of tourist activities in the city of Agia Napa (Cyprus) Przychodzen (2018)
and suggest a strategic plan and policy to reverse the decline of the Boscoianu et al. (2018)
historic center where several SMEs have closed and jobs have been Behnam et al. (2018)
lost, mostly due to an economic recession and competition from other de Vargas Mores et al.
more attractive tourist destinations. (2018)
Berkowitz (2018)
Two other papers are concerned primarily with the environmental TECH Marcilio et al. Zulfiqar and Thapa
UN

challenges of innovations for sustainable development. Fernández et (2018) (2018)

al. (2018) empirically verify whether innovation efforts have a pos- He and Zhan (2018) Bechtsis et al. (2018)
itive effect on reducing CO2 emissions by employing an economet- Dobrotă and Dobrotă D'Avanzo et al. (2018)
(2018)
ric model for the European Union (15), the United States, and China Laiola and Giungato
between 1990 and 2013. Results suggest that spending on R&D con- (2018)
tributes positively to the reduction of CO2 emissions for developed Zorpas et al. (2018a)
countries. deLlano-Paz et al. (2018) analyze the electricity generation POL Fernández et al. Picatoste et al. López-Iglesias et al.
costs for different technologies, their risks and a set of constraints (2018) (2018) (2018)
deLlano-Paz et al. Zorpas et al. Melane-Lavado et al.
on the emission of pollutant gases. Their results suggest that the EU (2018) (2018b) (2018)
technology portfolio is far from efficient, revealing the need to in Navamuel et al. (2018)
Blanco-Cerradelo et al.
(2017)
6 Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2018) xxx-xxx

SD discourse to the TCOS framework (Hall et al., 2011) as we have agers should expect in terms of maximizing their sustainability trajec-
done in this paper. Depending on the nature of the innovation (i.e., tory and the best managerial approaches and perspectives that could
traditional, green, social, or sustainable) a different type of uncer- be employed in each case.
tainty (or uncertainties) might be evident in each. For example, while Fourth, we argue that more radical approaches to sustainability are
green innovations may face more challenging technological uncertain- required and we call for further research on this topic. More specifi-
ties (the “T” of the TCOS acronym) due to the need to develop and cally, it is important to identify and assess the boundaries and factors

F
improve such innovative technologies (e.g., carbon capture, fuel cells, behind novel sustainability perspectives such as Sustainable Innova-
and battery technologies), social innovations might fail more often due tion 2.0 and its “double bottom line” approach in terms of refining

OO
to commercial uncertainties (the “C” of the TCOS acronym) since fi- them and testing them empirically.
nancial viability is usually more difficult to achieve. This contribution We hope that this paper will become inspirational for researchers,
suggests that understanding the differences among the various types practitioners, and policy-makers who are involved in the sustainable
of innovations might help scholars and managers to find better ways development discourse. We believe an important and challenging
to see and manage them. mind-set change and paradigm shift must still happen for us as a soci-
Second, enhanced sustainability performance requires deep ety to be able to truly move toward a sustainable society.
changes in organizations, supply chains, and communities, and this
can only happen through learning and innovation. This paper com-

PR
bines the innovations for SD discourse and the notion of sustainability Uncited reference
trajectories (Silvestre, 2015a), and this suggests that as the nature of
the innovation differs (i.e., traditional, green, social, or sustainable), Pellegrini and Gerlagh, 2006.
organizations, supply chains, and communities might have to evolve
differently on their sustainability trajectories. This is because differ-
References
ent types of innovations might enhance different types of learning that
might be more conducive to different opportunities for innovations Adams, R., Jeanrenaud, S., Bessant, J., Denyer, D., Overy, P., 2016. Sustainability-ori-

ED
for SD. We also argue that the notion of evolution of organizations, ented innovation: a systematic review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 18 (2), 180–205.
supply chains, and communities on their sustainability trajectory con- Aghion, P., Hepburn, C., Teytelboym, A., Zenghelis, D., 2014. Path Dependence, In-
verges with the path dependence literature, where current innovation novation and the Economics of Climate Change. Policy Paper. Centre for Climate
Change Economics and Policy and Grantham Research Institute on Climate
opportunities are bounded by past decisions, experiences, and inno- Change and the Environment, A Contributing Paper to: the New Climate Econ-
vations (Martin and Sunley, 2006). This contribution is important be- omy. Retrieved from: www.newclimateeconomy.report/workingpapers/
cause contextual and historical factors must be taken into considera- wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2016/04/Path-dependence-and-econ-of-change.pdf, on
tion when addressing innovations for SD. September 15, 2018.
CT
Almeida, C.M.V.B., Bonilla, S.H., Giannetti, B.F., Huisingh, D., 2013. Cleaner Pro-
Third, communities, cities, and regions can benefit from even more duction initiatives and challenges for a sustainable world: an introduction to this
radical perspectives. While sustainable innovations are often seen as special volume. J. Clean. Prod. 47, 1–10.
consistent with the triple bottom line, recent sustainability studies go Anderson, P., 1999. Perspective: complexity theory and organization science. Organ.
even further and suggest that there is a need to move toward more rad- Sci. 10 (3), 216–232.
Bartlett, D., Trifilova, A., 2010. Green technology and eco-innovation: seven
ical approaches to sustainability if we truly aim to address the press-
case-studies from a Russian manufacturing context. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 21
ing social and environmental challenges we are currently facing. This (8), 910–929.
RE

perspective is compatible with the term coined by Dyck and Silvestre Bechtsis, D., Tsolakis, N., Vlachos, D., Srai, J.S., 2018. Intelligent Autonomous Vehi-
(2018b) called Sustainable Innovation 2.0. The authors argue that so- cles in digital supply chains: a framework for integrating innovations towards sus-
cial and environmental dimensions must jointly be the primary focus tainable value networks. J. Clean. Prod. 181, 60–71.
Behnam, S., Cagliano, R., Grijalvo, M., 2018. How should firms reconcile their open
of innovations for SD (i.e., a double bottom line), while the economic innovation capabilities for incorporating external actors in innovations aimed at
dimension must not be ignored, but become subservient to the other sustainable development?. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 950–965.
two primary dimensions (Dyck and Silvestre, 2018b). Beise, M., Rennings, K., 2005. Lead markets and regulation: a framework for analyz-
R

Based on these contributions, multiple opportunities for future re- ing the international diffusion of environmental innovations. Ecol. Econ. 52 (1),
5–17.
search can be identified. First, we call for further research on how in- Berkowitz, H., 2018. Meta-organizing firms' capabilities for sustainable innovation: a
novations for SD vary in the broad literature within these three sub- conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 175, 420–430.
jects (i.e., technology, management, and policy), and how innovation Blanco-Cerradelo, L., Gueimonde-Canto, A., Fraiz-Brea, J.A., Diéguez-Castrillón,
CO

types (i.e., traditional, green, social, and sustainable) are spread across M.I., 2017. Dimensions of destination competitiveness: analyses of protected areas
in Spain. J. Clean. Prod. 10, 782–794.
these themes. This will provide a more fine-grained understanding of Boscoianu, M., Prelipcean, G., Lupan, M., 2018. Innovation enterprise as a vehicle for
what type of innovations are most relevant and can actually help re- sustainable development–A general framework for the design of typical strategies
search and practice to advance to resolve the pressing matters of sus- based on enterprise systems engineering, dynamic capabilities, and option think-
tainability society is currently facing. ing. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3498–3507.
Second, we call for further understanding on how different types of Buchholz, T.S., Volk, T.A., Luzadis, V.A., 2007. A participatory systems approach to
modeling social, economic, and ecological components of bioenergy. Energy Pol.
innovations (i.e., traditional, green, social, sustainable) and their focus
UN

35 (12), 6084–6094.
(i.e., technology, management, policy) impact the four TCOS innova- Bush, R., 2010. Food riots: poverty, power and protest. J. Agrar. Change 10 (1),
tion uncertainties (i.e., technological, commercial, organizational, and 119–129.
societal). This opportunity can provide us with practical insights on Calcott, P., Walls, M., 2000. Can downstream waste disposal policies encourage up-
stream “design for environment”?. Am. Econ. Rev. 90 (2), 233–237.
how to mitigate or eliminate uncertainties given the type and focus of Cajaiba-Santana, G., 2014. Social innovation: moving the field forward. A conceptual
a specific innovation for SD. framework. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 82, 42–51.
Third, this research opens up promising research opportunities for Canan, P., Andersen, S.O., Reichman, N., Gareau, B., 2015. Introduction to the special
enhancing our understanding of how the type and focus of innova- issue on ozone layer protection and climate change: the extraordinary experience
of building the Montreal Protocol, lessons learned, and hopes for future climate
tions for SD can actually provide additional insights on what man
change efforts. J. Environ. Soc. Sci. 5 (2), 111–121.
Chen, Y.S., Lai, S.B., Wen, C.T., 2006. The influence of green innovation perfor-
mance on corporate advantage in Taiwan. J. Bus. Ethics 67 (4), 331–339.
 Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2018) xxx-xxx 7

Dahlsrud, A., 2008. How corporate social responsibility is defined: an analysis of 37 Khan, M.S., Johansson, E., Zaman, S., Unemo, M., Rahat, N.I., Lundborg, C.S., 2010.
definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 15 (1), 1–13. Poverty of opportunity forcing women into prostitution—a qualitative study in
D'Avanzo, E., D'Antò, V., Michelotti, A., Martina, R., Adinolfi, P., Madariaga, A.C.P., Pakistan. Health Care Women Int. 31 (4), 365–383.
Zanoli, R., 2018. A collaborative web service exploiting collective rules and evi- Laiola, E., Giungato, P., 2018. Wind characterization in Taranto city as a basis for in-
dence integration to support sustainable orthodontic decisions. J. Clean. Prod. 176, novative sustainable urban development. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3535–3545.
813–826. López-Iglesias, E., Peón, D., Rodríguez-Álvarez, J., 2018. Mobility innovations for
Dawson, P., Daniel, L., 2010. Understanding social innovation: a provisional frame- sustainability and cohesion of rural areas: a transport model and public investment

F
work. Int. J. Technol. Manag. 51 (1), 9–21. analysis for Valdeorras (Galicia, Spain). J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3520–3534.
de Vargas Mores, G., Finocchio, C.P.S., Barichello, R., Pedrozo, E.A., 2018. Sustain- Marcilio, G.P., de Assis Rangel, J.J., de Souza, C.L.M., Shimoda, E., da Silva, F.F.,
ability and innovation in the Brazilian supply chain of green plastic. J. Clean. Prod. Peixoto, T.A., 2018. Analysis of greenhouse gas emissions in the road freight

OO
177, 12–18. transportation using simulation. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 298–309.
Dobrotă, D., Dobrotă, G., 2018. An innovative method in the regeneration of waste Martin, R., Sunley, P., 2006. Path dependence and regional economic evolution. J.
rubber and the sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3591–3599. Econ. Geogr. 6 (4), 395–437.
Dyck, B., Silvestre, B.S., 2018a. A novel NGO approach to facilitate the adoption of Matos, S., Silvestre, B.S., 2013. Managing stakeholder relations when developing sus-
sustainable innovations in low-income countries: lessons from small-scale farms in tainable business models: the case of the Brazilian energy sector. J. Clean. Prod.
Nicaragua. Organ. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617747921. 45, 61–73.
Dyck, B., Silvestre, B.S., 2018b. Enhancing socio-ecological value creation through McAra, L., McVie, S., 2016. Understanding youth violence: the mediating effects of
sustainable innovation 2.0: moving away from maximizing financial value capture. gender, poverty and vulnerability. J. Crim. Justice 45, 71–77.
J. Clean. Prod. 171, 1593–1604. McWilliams, A., Siegel, D., 2001. Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm

PR
Edgeman, R., Eskildsen, J., 2014. Modeling and assessing sustainable enterprise excel- perspective. Acad. Manag. Rev. 26 (1), 117–127.
lence. Bus. Strat. Environ. 23 (3), 173–187. Melane-Lavado, A., Álvarez-Herranz, A., González-González, I., 2018. Foreign direct
Elkington, J., 1997. Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century. investment as a way to guide the innovative process towards sustainability. J.
Capstone, Oxford, UK. ISBN: 1-900961-27-X. Clean. Prod. 172, 3578–3590.
Epstein, M.J., Buhovac, A.R., 2014. Making Sustainability Work: Best Practices in Morais, D.O., Silvestre, B.S., 2018. Advancing social sustainability in supply chain
Managing and Measuring Corporate Social, Environmental, and Economic Im- management: lessons from multiple case studies in an emerging economy. J.
pacts. Berrett-Koehler Publishers, San Francisco, CA, USA. Clean. Prod. 199, 222–235.
European Union, 2014. Report on the EU and the Global Development Framework af- Motta, W.H., Issberner, L.R., dos Rios Prado, P., 2018. Life cycle assessment and
ter 2015 (2014/2143(INI)). European Unión. Committee on Development, Re- eco-innovations: what kind of convergence is possible?. J. Clean. Prod. 187,
trieved from www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP// 1103–1114.

ED
TEXT+REPORT+A8-2014-0037+0+DOC+XML+V0//EN, on May 8th, 2017. Mulgan, G., 2006. A Manifesto for Social Innovation: what it Is, Why it Matters and
Fernández, Y.F., López, M.F., Blanco, B.O., 2018. Innovation for sustainability: the How it Can Be Accelerated. The Young Foundation, London, UK.
impact of R&D spending on CO2 emissions. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3459–3467. Nair, S., Paulose, H., 2014. Emergence of green business models: the case of algae
Franceschini, S., Faria, L.G., Jurowetzki, R., 2016. Unveiling scientific communities biofuel for aviation. Energy Pol. 65, 175–184.
about sustainability and innovation. A bibliometric journey around sustainable Navamuel, E.L., Morollón, F.R., Cuartas, B.M., 2018. Energy consumption and urban
terms. J. Clean. Prod. 127, 72–83. sprawl: evidence for the Spanish case. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3479–3486.
Freeman, C., 1982. The Economics of Industrial Innovation. Pinter, Indianapolis, IN, Neutzling, D.M., Land, A., Seuring, S., do Nascimento, L.F.M., 2018. Linking sustain-
USA. ability-oriented innovation to supply chain relationship integration. J. Clean. Prod.
CT
Fussler, C., James, P., 1996. Driving Eco-innovation: a Breakthrough Discipline for In- 172, 3448–3458.
novation and Sustainability. Pitman, London, UK. Nicholls, A., Murdock, A., 2012. The nature of social innovation. In: Social Innova-
Giuliani, E., 2016. Human rights and corporate social responsibility in developing tion. Palgrave Macmillan, London, UK, pp. 1–30.
countries' industrial clusters. J. Bus. Ethics 133 (1), 39–54. Nunes, B., Bennett, D., 2010. Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry:
Greenstone, M., Hanna, R., 2014. Environmental regulations, air and water pollution, an environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study. Benchmarking Int. J.
and infant mortality in India. Am. Econ. Rev. 104 (10), 3038–3072. 17 (3), 396–420.
Hall, J.K., Martin, M.J., 2005. Disruptive technologies, stakeholders and the innova- Ousey, G.C., Kubrin, C.E., 2018. Immigration and crime: assessing a contentious is-
tion value-added chain: a framework for evaluating radical technology develop- sue. Annual Rev. Criminol. 1, 63–84.
RE

ment. R D Manag. 35 (3), 273–284. Pellegrini, L., Gerlagh, R., 2006. Corruption, democracy, and environmental policy: an
Hall, J., Matos, S., Gold, S., Severino, L.S., 2018. The paradox of sustainable innova- empirical contribution to the debate. J. Environ. Dev. 15 (3), 332–354.
tion: the ‘Eroom’effect (Moore's law backwards). J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3487–3497. Picatoste, J., Ruesga-Benito, S.M., González-Laxe, F., 2018. Economic environment
Hall, J., Matos, S., Silvestre, B., 2012a. Understanding why firms should invest in sus- and health care coverage: analysis of social acceptance of access restrictive poli-
tainable supply chains: a complexity approach. Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (5), cies applied in Spain in the context of economic crisis. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
1332–1348. 3600–3608.
Hall, J., Matos, S., Sheehan, L., Silvestre, B., 2012b. Entrepreneurship and innovation Przychodzen, W., Przychodzen, J., 2018. Sustainable innovations in the corporate sec-
R

at the base of the pyramid: a recipe for inclusive growth or social exclusion?. J. tor–The empirical evidence from IBEX 35 firms. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3557–3566.
Manag. Stud. 49 (4), 785–812. Rantala, T., Ukko, J., Saunila, M., Havukainen, J., 2018. The effect of sustainability in
Hall, J., Matos, S., Silvestre, B., Martin, M., 2011. Managing technological and social the adoption of technological, service, and business model innovations. J. Clean.
uncertainties of innovation: the evolution of Brazilian energy and agriculture. Prod. 172, 46–55.
CO

Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 78 (7), 1147–1157. Saieg, P., Sotelino, E.D., Nascimento, D., Caiado, R.G.G., 2018. Interactions of build-
Hall, J., Vredenburg, H., 2003. The challenge of innovating for sustainable develop- ing information modeling, lean and sustainability on the architectural, engineering
ment. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 45 (1), 61–71. and construction industry: a systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 174, 788–806.
He, X., Zhan, W., 2018. How to activate moral norm to adopt electric vehicles in Schrempf-Stirling, J., Palazzo, G., Phillips, R.A., 2016. Historic corporate social re-
China? An empirical study based on extended norm activation theory. J. Clean. sponsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 41 (4), 700–719.
Prod. 172, 3546–3556. Schumpeter, J., 1934. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. Harper & Row, New
Hilgartner, S., Bosk, C.L., 1988. The rise and fall of social problems: a public arenas York, USA.
model. Am. J. Sociol. 94 (1), 53–78. Seuring, S., Muller, M., 2008. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for
Hong, J., Zhang, Y., Ding, M., 2018. Sustainable supply chain management practices, sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean. Prod. 16 (15), 1699–1710.
UN

supply chain dynamic capabilities, and enterprise performance. J. Clean. Prod. Seyfang, G., Smith, A., 2007. Grassroots innovations for sustainable development: to-
172, 3508–3519. wards a new research and policy agenda. Environ. Polit. 16 (4), 584–603.
Huang, J., Yu, H., Guan, X., Wang, G., Guo, R., 2016. Accelerated dryland expansion Shively, G.E., 2004. Poverty and forest degradation: introduction to the special issue.
under climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 6 (2), 166. Environ. Dev. Econ. 9 (2), 131–134.
Huisingh, D., Tukker, A., Lozano, R., Quist, J., 2013. Knowledge collaboration and Silvestre, B.S., 2015a. Sustainable supply chain management in emerging economies:
learning for sustainable innovation: an introduction to this special volume (Editor- environmental turbulence, institutional voids and sustainability trajectories. Int. J.
ial). J. Clean. Prod. 48, 1–2. Prod. Econ. 167, 156–169.
Jensen, M., 1988. Takeovers: their causes and consequences. J. Econ. Perspect. 2 (1), Silvestre, B.S., 2015b. A hard nut to crack! Implementing supply chain sustainability
21–44. in an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod. 96, 171–181.
Joyce, A., Paquin, R.L., 2016. The triple layered business model canvas: a tool to de-
sign more sustainable business models. J. Clean. Prod. 135, 1474–1486.
8 Journal of Cleaner Production xxx (2018) xxx-xxx

Silvestre, B.S., Silva Neto, R., 2014a. Capability accumulation, innovation, and tech- WCED, 1987. World Commission on Environment and Development. Our Common
nology diffusion: lessons from a Base of the Pyramid cluster. Technovation 34 (5), Future. Oxford University Press, New York, USA.
270–283. Wheeler, T., Von Braun, J., 2013. Climate change impacts on global food security.
Silvestre, B.S., Silva Neto, R., 2014b. Are cleaner production innovations the solution Science 341, 508–513.
for small mining operations in poor regions? The case of Padua in Brazil. J. Clean. Wong, C.W., Lai, K.H., Shang, K.C., Lu, C.S., Leung, T.K.P., 2012. Green operations
Prod. 84, 809–817. and the moderating role of environmental management capability of suppliers on
Silvestre, B.S., Monteiro, M.S., Viana, F.L.E., de Sousa-Filho, J.M., 2018. Challenges manufacturing firm performance. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 140 (1), 283–294.

F
for sustainable supply chain management: when stakeholder collaboration be- Yenipazarli, A., 2017. To collaborate or not to collaborate: prompting upstream eco-ef-
comes conducive to corruption. J. Clean. Prod. 194, 766–776. ficient innovation in a supply chain. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 260 (2), 571–587.
Srivastava, S.K., 2007. Green supply-chain management: a state-of-the-art literature Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., Lehmann-Ortega, L., 2010. Building social business mod-

OO
review. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 9 (1), 53–80. els: lessons from the Grameen experience. Long. Range Plan. 43 (2–3), 308–325.
Teece, D.J., 1986. Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integra- Zachariadis, T., 2016. Climate change impacts. In: Climate Change in Cyprus.
tion, collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Pol. 15 (6), 285–305. SpringerBriefs in Environmental Science, Springer, New York, USA, pp. 25–49.
United Nations, 2016. Working Arrangements for the 2016 Session of the Economic Zorpas, A.A., Lasaridi, K., Pociovalisteanu, D.M., Loizia, P., 2018a. Monitoring and
and Social Council, 24 July 2015-27 July 2016. Retrieved from: www.un.org/ evaluation of prevention activities regarding household organics waste from insu-
ecosoc/en/sustainable-development, on May 8th, 2017. lar communities. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3567–3577.
Utterback, J., 1994. Mastering the Dynamics of Innovation: How Companies Can Zorpas, A.A., Voukkali, I., Pedreño, J.N., 2018b. Tourist area metabolism and its po-
Seize Opportunities in the Face of Technological Change. Harvard Business tential to change through a proposed strategic plan in the framework of sustainable
School Press, Boston, USA. development. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 3609–3620.

PR
Uyarra, E., Shapira, P., Harding, A., 2016. Low carbon innovation and enterprise Zulfiqar, F., Thapa, G.B., 2018. Determinants and intensity of adoption of “better cot-
growth in the UK: challenges of a place-blind policy mix. Technol. Forecast. Soc. ton” as an innovative cleaner production alternative. J. Clean. Prod. 172,
Change 103, 264–272. 3468–3478.
van der Have, R.P., Rubalcaba, L., 2016. Social innovation research: an emerging area
of innovation studies?. Res. Pol. 45 (9), 1923–1935.

ED
CT
R RE
CO
UN