Recent economic crises, environmental problems and social challenges have urged us to drastically change our consumption and production patterns and transform organisations to contribute to socio-technical transitions that positively impact these challenges. Therefore, sustainable development and the transition towards a circular economy are gaining increased attention from academics and are being widely adopted by national and local governments, companies and other organisations and institutions. Since the implementation of more sustainable solutions lags behind expectations and technological possibilities, scholars and practitioners are increasingly seeing sustainable business model innovation as the key pathway to show the value potential of new sustainable technology and stress the importance of integrating the interests of multiple stakeholders and their economic, environmental and social value goals in the business model’s development. However, there is limited research that elucidates which stakeholders are actively involved, how they interact and what the effect is on the collaborative business modelling process for sustainability. This thesis addresses this research gap by building on the notion of business models as boundary-spanning activity-systems and studies stakeholder interaction from the level of a focal firm, as well as from the level of cross-sector actors collaborating in innovation ecosystems. Through four independent studies, three empirical studies and a design science study, this thesis aims to provide a better understanding of how stakeholder interaction affects collaborative business modelling for sustainability.The first study (Chapter 2) took a process perspective on interaction with network ties from the perspective of a focal firm. Based on two case studies of SMEs successfully introducing sustainable technology in the market, value shaping was identified as the operative mechanism describing the relation between networking and business modelling, from ideation to growth of the business. A stage model with five successive forms of value shaping describes how, in each stage, interaction with network ties help firms to clarify the types of economic, environmental and social value that a sustainable technology can deliver and who possible beneficiaries are. In return, changes in the business model clarify what other network ties are needed, demonstrating how the boundary-spanning function of business models spurs firms to expand and strengthen the value network.The second study (Chapter 3) focused on the commercialisation stage, in which a cognitive change in the manager’s mind was found during the development of a sustainable business model. Based on three empirical cases of business model innovations for sustainability, the study explored how stakeholder interaction may trigger and support managerial cognitive change and hence business model innovation. The findings suggest that the influence of stakeholders on the manager’s understanding of the business runs via three interrelated shaping processes: market approach shaping, product and/or service offering shaping and credibility shaping. In these shaping processes, new or latent stakeholders are found to have a bigger impact than existing ones. A research agenda is presented to further unravel the role of stakeholders affecting managerial cognition around business model innovation for sustainability.The third study (Chapter 4) examined innovation ecosystems’ processes of developing a collaborative business model for sustainability. Based on a study of four sustainably innovative cross-sector collaborations, this chapter studied how innovation ecosystems resolve the tensions that emerge from the collaborating actors’ divergent goals and interests. This study finds that innovation ecosystems engage in a process of valuing value that helps the actors to manage the tensions and find a balance of environmental, social and economic value creation and capture that satisfies all involved actors. The findings reveal that valuing value occurs in two different patterns – collective orchestration and continuous search – that open up a research agenda that can shed further light on the conditions that need to be in place in order for an innovation ecosystem to develop effective sustainable business models. The final study (Chapter 5) used a design science approach, developing a tool for innovation ecosystems’ actors to manage the degree to which stakeholders are involved throughout the process of collaborative business modelling for sustainability. The resulting ‘degree of engagement diagram’ and accompanying stepwise approach makes it possible to identify stakeholders from six cross-sector stakeholder groups that represent economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainable value and visualise their roles. By discriminating between four concentric and permeable circles of engagement, the tool integrates different degrees of involvement of stakeholders and enables users of the DoE diagram to accommodate changes that may occur in the evolving business model and its context. The tool enables innovation ecosystems’ actors to keep the collaboration manageable during the development of a joint and viable sustainable business model. Overall, this thesis extends the understanding of the dynamics of collaborative business modelling for sustainability and the role of stakeholder interaction therein. The research makes three key contributions to the sustainable business model innovation literature. First, it extends the literature by exploring the interplay between stakeholder interaction and business modelling over time. It establishes that stakeholder interaction and business modelling have a reciprocal relationship and contributes with two frameworks – value shaping and valuing value – that explain this reciprocal relationship for firms and innovation ecosystems. Second, the thesis unravels the micro-processes and mechanisms that elucidate how stakeholder interaction actually influences the direction into which the sustainable business model develops. Third, this thesis enriches the scholarly understanding of stakeholder interaction by identifying the main contributors to business model innovation for sustainability, by differentiating between stakeholders and their roles and by providing a tool that accommodates this. The research contributes to practice by offering practitioners useful insights on how they can increase, improve and effectuate stakeholder interaction in order to develop viable business models for sustainability and hence contribute to the desired socio-technical transitions.
The paper analyses key elements of communication that may lead to accusations that a company is engaging in practices of greenwashing failing to create stakeholder engagement. According to sensemaking and sensegiving approaches, the theoretical foundations that underpin the concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR) communication and greenwashing practices are explored and a comparison between two energy companies in the Italian and Dutch context is set up for exploratory purpose. The integration of a company’s strategic CSR approach and its communication practices may help to enhance effective stakeholder engagement, prevent accusations of greenwashing and avert the negative associated consequences (e.g., scepticism among stakeholders). The research provides a theoretical contribution to CSR communication by identifying several pitfalls that can lead to the appearance of greenwashing and provides caveats for the further development of both theory and managerial practices.
The numerous grand challenges around us demand new approaches to build alternative sustainable futures collectively. Whereas these so-called co-design processes are becoming more mainstream, many multi-stakeholder coalitions lack practical guidance in these dynamic and systemic challenges based on entangled relationships, interactions, and experiences between stakeholders and their environments. Although scholars and practitioners convey a lot of co-design theories and methods, there does not seem to be a practical instrument beyond methods that supports new coalitions with an overview of a co-design process to come and in making shared and fundamental co-design decisions. Therefore, this paper proposes the empathic Co-Design Canvas as a new intermediate-level knowledge product existing of eight co-design decision cards, which together make up the Canvas as a whole. The Canvas is based on an existing theoretical framework defined by Lee et al. (2018), an empirical case study, and a diversity of experiences in education and practice. It aims at supporting multi-stakeholder coalitions to flexibly plan, conduct, and evaluate a co-design process. Moreover, the Canvas encourages coalitions to not only discuss the problematic context, a common purpose, envisioned impact, concrete results, and each other’s interests and knowledge, but also power, which can create trust, a more equal level playing field and empathy, and help manage expectations, which is greatly needed to overcome today’s grand challenges.
LINK
The transition to a circular, resource efficient construction sector is crucial to achieve climate neutrality in 2050. Construction stillaccounts for 50% of all extracted materials, is responsible for 3% of EU’s waste and for at least 12% of Green House Gas emissions.However, this transition is lagging, the impact of circular building materials is still limited.To accelerate the positive impact of circulair building materials Circular Trust Building has analyzed partners’ circular initiatives andidentified 4 related critical success factors for circularity, re-use of waste, and lower emissions:1. Level of integration2. Organized trust3. Shared learning4. Common goalsScaling these success factors requires new solutions, skills empowering stakeholders, and joint strategies and action plans. Circular TrustBuilding will do so using the innovative sociotechnical transition theory:1.Back casting: integrating stakeholders on common goals and analyzing together what’s needed, what’s available and who cancontribute what. The result is a joint strategy and xx regional action plans.2.Agile development of missing solutions such a Circular Building Trust Framework, Regional Circular Deals, connecting digitalplatforms matching supply and demand3.Increasing institutional capacity in (de-)construction, renovation, development and regulation: trained professionals move thetransition forward.Circular Trust Building will demonstrate these in xx pilots with local stakeholders. Each pilot will at least realize a 25% reduction of thematerial footprint of construction and renovation
The project aims to improve palliative care in China through the competence development of Chinese teachers, professionals, and students focusing on the horizontal priority of digital transformation.Palliative care (PC) has been recognised as a public health priority, and during recent years, has seen advances in several aspects. However, severe inequities in the access and availability of PC worldwide remain. Annually, approximately 56.8 million people need palliative care, where 25.7% of the care focuses on the last year of person’s life (Connor, 2020).China has set aims for reaching the health care standards of the developed countries by 2030 through the Healthy China Strategy 2030, where one of the improvement areas in health care includes palliative care, thus continuing the previous efforts.The project provides a constructive, holistic, and innovative set of actions aimed at resulting in lasting outcomes and continued development of palliative care education and services. Raising the awareness of all stakeholders on palliative care, including the public, is highly relevant and needed. Evidence based practice guidelines and education are urgently required for both general and specialised palliative care levels, to increase the competencies for health educators, professionals, and students. This is to improve the availability and quality of person-centered palliative care in China. Considering the aging population, increase in various chronic illnesses, the challenging care environment, and the moderate health care resources, competence development and the utilisation of digitalisation in palliative care are paramount in supporting the transition of experts into the palliative care practice environment.General objective of the project is to enhance the competences in palliative care in China through education and training to improve the quality of life for citizens. Project develops the competences of current and future health care professionals in China to transform the palliative care theory and practice to impact the target groups and the society in the long-term. As recognised by the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC), palliative care competences need to be developed in collaboration. This includes shared willingness to learn from each other to improve the sought outcomes in palliative care (EAPC 2019). Since all individuals have a right to health care, project develops person-centered and culturally sensitive practices taking into consideration ethics and social norms. As concepts around palliative care can focus on physical, psychological, social, or spiritual related illnesses (WHO 2020), project develops innovative pedagogy focusing on evidence-based practice, communication, and competence development utilising digital methods and tools. Concepts of reflection, values and views are in the forefront to improve palliative care for the future. Important aspects in project development include health promotion, digital competences and digital health literacy skills of professionals, patients, and their caregivers. Project objective is tied to the principles of the European Commission’s (EU) Digital Decade that stresses the importance of placing people and their rights in the forefront of the digital transformation, while enhancing solidarity, inclusion, freedom of choice and participation. In addition, concepts of safety, security, empowerment, and the promotion of sustainable actions are valued. (European Commission: Digital targets for 2030).Through the existing collaboration, strategic focus areas of the partners, and the principles of the call, the PalcNet project consortium was formed by the following partners: JAMK University of Applied Sciences (JAMK ), Ramon Llull University (URL), Hanze University of Applied Sciences (HUAS), Beijing Union Medical College Hospital (PUMCH), Guangzhou Health Science College (GHSC), Beihua University (BHU), and Harbin Medical University (HMU). As project develops new knowledge, innovations and practice through capacity building, finalisation of the consortium considered partners development strategy regarding health care, (especially palliative care), ability to create long-term impact, including the focus on enhancing higher education according to the horizontal priority. In addition, partners’ expertise and geographical location was also considered important to facilitate long-term impact of the results.Primary target groups of the project include partner country’s (China) staff members, teachers, researchers, health care professionals and bachelor level students engaging in project implementation. Secondary target groups include those groups who will use the outputs and results and continue in further development in palliative care upon the lifetime of the project.
De afgelopen twee decennia is er veel meer aandacht ontstaan bij onderzoekers en beleidsmakers voor het begrip co-creatie. Bijna altijd wordt de rol van co-creatie als positief en essentieel gezien in een proces waarin maatschappelijke of publieke uitdagingen worden onderzocht en opgelost (zogenaamde sociale innovatie). Het meeste onderzoek naar deze twee begrippen is kwalitatief van aard en gebaseerd op ‘case studies’.In zijn promotieonderzoek kijkt Peter Broekema naar de rol van co-creatie binnen sociale innovatie in Europese samenwerkingsprojecten. In zijn eerste artikel heeft hij de begrippen co-creatie en sociale innovatie tussen 1995 en 2018 binnen de EU geanalyseerd en geconcludeerd dat beide begrippen steeds breder gebruikt worden en samen met het begrip impact zijn getransformeerd tot een beleidsparadigma.In het tweede artikel keek Peter Broekema hoe beide begrippen doorwerken in specifieke subsidieoproepen en hoe consortia deze begrippen toepassen en samenwerken. Hierbij bleek dat er weliswaar verschillende typen consortia bestaan, maar dat zij geen specifieke co-creatiestrategie hadden.In zijn laatste twee artikelen zal hij gedetailleerd kijken naar een aantal EU projecten en vaststellen hoe de samenwerking is verlopen en hoe tevreden de verschillende partners zijn met het resultaat. Peter Broekema maakt hiervoor gebruik van projecten waarin hij zelf participeert (ACCOMPLISSH, INEDIT en SHIINE).EU beleidsparadigma van sociale innovatie in combinatie met co-creatie en impact. Co-creatie vindt vaak binnen eigen type stakehodlers plaatsAbstractSocial innovation and co-creation are both relatively new concepts, that have been studied by scholars for roughly twenty years and are still heavily contested. The former emerged as a response to the more technologically focused concept of innovation and the latter originally solely described the collaboration of end-users in the development of new products, processes or services. Between 2010-2015, both concepts have been adapted and started to be used more widely by for example EU policymakers in their effort to tackle so called ‘grand societal challenges’. Within this narrative – which could be called co-creation for social innovation, it is almost a prerequisite that partners – especially citizens - from different backgrounds and sectors actively work together towards specific societal challenges. Relevance and aimHowever, the exact contribution of co-creation to social innovation projects is still unclear. Most research on co-creation has been focussing on the involvement of end-users in the development of products, processes and services. In general, scholars conclude that the involvement of end-users is effective and leads to a higher level of customer satisfaction. Only recently, research into the involvement of citizens in social innovation projects has started to emerge. However, the majority of research on co-creation for social innovation has been focusing on collaborations between two types of partners in the quadruple helix (citizens, governments, enterprises and universities). Because of this, it is still unclear what co-creation in social innovation projects with more different type of partners entails exactly. More importantly however, is that most research has been based on national case studies in which partners from different sectors collaborate in a familiar ‘national’ setting. Normally institutional and/or cultural contexts influence co-creation (for example the ‘poldermodel’in the Netherlands or the more confrontational model in France), so by looking at projects in a central EU and different local contexts it becomes clear how context effects co-creation for social innovation.Therefore this project will analyse a number of international co-creation projects that aim for social innovation with different types of stakeholders in a European and multi-stakeholder setting.With this research we will find out what people in different contexts believe is co-creation and social innovation, how this process works in different contexts and how co-creation contributes to social innovation.Research question and - sub questionsThe project will answer the following question: “What is the added value of co-creation in European funded collaboration projects that aim for social innovation?” To answer the main question, the research has been subdivided into four sub questions:1) What is the assumed added value of co-creation for social innovation?2) How is the added value of co-creation for social innovation being expressed ex ante and ex post in EU projects that aim specifically for social innovation by co-creation?3) How do partners and stakeholders envision the co-creation process beforehand and continuously shape this process in EU projects to maximise social innovation?4) How do partners and stakeholders regard the added value of co-creation for social innovation in EU projects that that aim for social innovation?Key conceptsThe research will focus on the interplay between the two main concepts a) co-creation and b) social innovation. For now, we are using the following working definitions:a) co-creation is a non-linear process that involves multiple actors and stakeholders in the ideation, implementation and assessment of products, services, policies and systems with the aim of improving their efficiency and effectiveness, and the satisfaction of those who take part in the process.b) social innovation is the invention, development and implementation of new ideas with the purpose to (immediately) relieve and (eventually) solve social problems, which are in the long run directed at the social inclusion of individuals, groups or communities.It is clear that both definitions are quite opaque, but also distinguish roughly the same phases (ideation/invention, development, implementation and assessment) and also distinguish different levels (products/services, policies and systems). Both concepts will be studied within the policy framework of the EU, in which a specific value to both concepts has been attributed, mostly because policymakers regard co-creation with universities and end-users almost as a prerequisite for social innovation. Based on preliminary research, EU policies seem to define social innovation in close reation with ‘societal impact’, which could defined as: “the long lasting effect of an activity on society, because it is aimed at solving social problems”, and therefore in this specific context social innovation seems to encompasses societal impact. For now, I will use this working definition of social innovation and will closely look at the entanglement with impact in the first outlined paper.MethodologyIn general, I will use a qualitative mixed method approach and grounded theory to answer the main research question (mRQ). In order to better understand the added value of co-creation for social innovation in an EU policy setting, the research will:SubRQ1) start with an analysis of academic literature on co-creation and social impact. This analysis will be followed by and confronted with an analysis of EU policy documents. SubRQ2) use a qualitative data analysis at nineteen EU funded projects to understand how co-creation is envisoned within social innovation projects by using the quintuple helix approach (knowledge flows between partners and stakeholders in an EU setting) and the proposed social innovation journey model. By contrasting the findings from the QDA phase of the project with other research on social innovation we will be able to find arachetypes of social innovation in relation with the (perceived) added value of co-creation within social innovation. SubRQ3) These archetypes will be used to understand the process of co-creation for social innovation by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.SubRQ4) The archetypes will also be used to understand the perceived added value by looking closely at behavioural interactions within two social innovation projects. This close examination will be carried out by carrying out interviews with key stakeholders and partners and participant observation.ImpactThe project will contribute to a better understanding of the relationship between co-creation and social innovation on different levels:a) Theoretical: the research will analyse the concepts of co-creation and social innovation in relation to each other by looking at the origins of the concepts, the adaptation in different fields and the uptake within EU policies;b) Methodological: a model will be developed to study and understand the non-lineair process of co-creation within social innovation, by focusing on social innovation pathways and social innovation strategies within a quintuple helix setting (i) academia, ii) enterprises and iii) governments that work together to improve iv) society in an v) EU setting);c) Empirical: the project will (for the first time) collect data on behavioural interactions and the satisfaction levels of these interactions between stakeholders and partners in an EU project.d) Societal: the results of the research could be used to optimize the support for social innovation projects and also for the development of specific funding calls.
