WP4.
Integrated innova1on and
coordina1on of research,
innova1on and industrial policies
WP leader
Aleksandra Gawel
Poznan University of Economics, Poland

State of the art
• Innovation as research =ield started to be explored with works of Joseph
Schumpeter (1934) who was the =irst one highlighted the importance of
innovation for economic development.
• According to Schumpeter: innovation is treated as new combinations in the
economy, including new combinations of goods, methods (production
technology), markets, suppliers and organization and the source of
companies’ pro=its.
• Innovation is very wildly understood phenomena, f.e.:
– an interactive process which refers to the behaviour of enterprises in planning and
implementing changes to their activities (Nauwelaers and Wintjes, 2002)
– the introduction of new economic activity, including both the introduction of
innovation into the marketplace, as well as entering as a new imitative competitor
(Koellinger, 2008)
– as successful implementation of creative ideas,
– Innovation requires the departure from existing technologies, practices and
venture beyond the current state of the art (Dess, Lumpkin, 2005).

Direc1ons of research on innova1veness
• process of innovation,
• types and determinants of innovation
(Gudmundson, Tower, Hartman, 2003),
• the analyses of entrepreneurs as creators of
innovation
• research on economic geography as the clusters of
innovation (Kalantaridis, Pheby, 1999).

The sources of innova1on
• science‐push innovation, the innovative initiative comes from the science
departments of companies.
• demand‐pull innovation, the initiative for innovation comes from the marketing,
sales or production departments of a company (Jovanovic, Rob, 1987).
• In 2000, the idea of Triple Helix ‐ innovation is treated as a result of university‐
government‐industry relations (Etzkowitz, Dzisah, 2008; Papagiannidis et al. 2009).
• Quadruple Helix ‐ university‐government‐industry + “media‐based and culture‐
based public” as fourth helix (Carayannis, Campbell, 2009)
• Quintuple Helix ‐ university‐government‐industry + “media‐based and culture‐
based public” + helix of environment (Carayannis, Campbell, 2010). In this
approach, social ecology is incorporated into the framework where knowledge,
innovation and the environment are connected. With this latest approach, the
importance of sustainable development and “eco‐innovation” are highlighted.

Innova1on policy of the European Union
• formulated in the "Broad‐based innovation strategy for the EU".
• Industry‐led and society‐driven innovation together with
competitiveness and public policies are a key element of the
renewed Lisbon strategy.
• R&D and innovation policy should focus on major challenges for our
society like climate change, energy and resource ef=iciency, health
and demographic change and should strengthen every link in the
innovation chain, from research to commercialisation (http://
ec.europa.eu/europe2020/priorities/smart‐growth/index_en.htm).

WP4 goes beyond the state of the art
• In WP4 of new‐LiFE project, the way beyond the state of the art is
results­oriented and is to be of two­steps.
• First step (task 4A) ‐ a general theoretical re=lection of innovation
process as a result of cooperation among different group of
participants (society, research, business and policy) and the
description of the best practices of such cooperation.
• The second step ‐ connected with results‐orientation, the research
assumption is to analyze the results of innovation in different areas
of usage, meaning economy (task 4B), social activity (task 4C) and
employment (task 4D).

References
• Amo B.W., Kolvereid L. (2005), Organizational Strategy, Individual Personality And Innovation Behavior, Joumal of
Enterprising Culture Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 7‐19
• Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F. J. (2009), “Mode 3” and “Quadruple Helix”: Toward a 21st Century Fractal Innovation
Ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.
• Carayannis, E. G., Campbell, D. F. J. (2010), Triple helix, Quadruple helix and Quintuple helix and how do Knowledge,
Innovation and the Environment relate To Each other? a Proposed Framework for a Trans‐disciplinary analysis of
Sustainable development and Social Ecology, International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1),
41‐69.
• Dess G.G., Lumpkin G. T., 2005, The Role of Entrepreneurial Orientation in Stimulating Effective Corporate
Entrepreneurship, Academy of Management Executive, 2005, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 147‐156.
• Etzkowitz H., Dzisah J. (2008), Rethinking development: circulation in the triple helix, Technology Analysis & Strategic
Management, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 653–666
• Gudmundson D., Tower C.B., Hartman E.A. (2003), Innovation in Small Businesses: Culture and Ownership Structure Do
matter, Journal of Developmental Entrepreneurship, vol. 8(1), pp. 1 – 17.
• Jovanovic B., Rob R. (1987), “Demand – Driven Innovation and Spatial Competition over Time”, Review of Economic Studies,
vol. 177, pp. 63 – 72.
• Kalantaridis Ch., Pheby J. (1999), Processes of innovation among manufacturing SME’s: the experience of Bedfordshine,
Entrepreneurship and Regional Development, vol. 11, pp. 57 – 78.
• Koellinger P. (2008), „Why are some entrepreneurs more innovative than others?”, Small Business Economics, vol. 31, pp.
21‐37.
• Nauwelaers C. and Wintjes R. (2002), “Innovating SMEs and Regions: The Need for Policy Intelligence and Interactive
Policies”, Technology Analysis and Strategic Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 201‐215.
• Papagiannidis S., Li F., Etzkowitz H., Clouser M. (2009), Entrepreneurial networks: A Triple Helix approach for brokering
human and social capital, Journal of International Entrepeneurship, vol. 7, pp. 215–235.
• Schumpeter J. (1934), „The Theory of Economic Development: An inquiry into proIits, capital, credit, interest and the business
cycle”
• http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/priorities/smart‐growth/index_en.htm (13.01.2011)

WP4 objec1ves
• Socio‐ecological transition means the change of economic live as a
result of innovations introduced to the market.
• Innovation fostering the sustainable development should be result
of cooperation among different group of stakeholders such as
society, research, business and policy.
• Coopetition, cooperation between competitors, as new way of
creation and implementation of innovation in socio‐ecological
transition should lead to new way of economic growth and
companies activities, based on the sustainable development.
• Innovation introduced in socio‐ecological transition requires the
change of companies strategies and employees attitude.

WP4 objec1ves
• Socio‐ecological transition requires both implementation of
economic thinking based on the =inancial effectiveness to socio‐
ecological transition and implementation of socio‐ecological
thinking based on the social effectiveness to economy at
macroeconomic and company level.
• Innovation in socio‐ecological transition requires the change of
acting way of stakeholders (f.e. enterprises, employees,
consumers, policy makers, citizens…) and should be both
economical and social.
• It means that studies of positive experiences of social and
ecological innovation in territorial areas are needed.
• It should be the basis for a list of recommendations specially
addressed to policy makers, entrepreneurs and social civil.

Task 4A. <integra1on> connec1ng society, research,
business and policy in crea1on and introduc1on of
innova1ons
Aims:
• To develop a theoretical framework showing the main relationships between
social demands, scienti=ic research and business,
• To understand the role of innovation in socio‐ecological transition
• activities will be measured at the UE and the countries or regions levels
• An analysis on the role of European Universities and research centers are playing
in order to enhance socio‐ecological innovation by means of: a) Fostering
researches which respond to present and future socio‐ecological problems: aging,
environmental problems, structural unemployment….;b) Transferring knowledge
from Universities and Research Centers to business and society in general, and
boosting the creation of new =irms based on knowledge created by the research
(Spin‐offs).
• the role that play both, European Innovation Programs and regional
infrastructures in supporting innovation in fostering cooperation between
enterprises.
Animator of task 4A: Rafael Cáceres, Universidad de Sevilla (Spain)

Task 4B. <coope11on> Coope11on as market orienta1on in
innova1on‐driven and knowledge‐based society – animated by Marek
Rekowski (UEP, Poland)
4B Aims:
• Innovative entrepreneurship constitutes an important endogenous factor in
sustainable development at regional level.
• The comparison of role of innovations in the development of enterprises will
be conducted in different regions and time periods.
• how innovation factors (investment, new technologies, EU funds, access to the
Internet) affect the distribution of income in European regions (270 European
regions at NUTS 2 level) in the context of sustainable development and the
socio‐ecological transition.
Animator of task 4B: Marek REKOWSKI (UEP, Poland)
• Subtask <<economy>>Economic growth and sustainable development
driven by innovation, animator: Marek REKOWSKI (UEP, Poland)
• Subtask <<company>> Innovation as factor fostering companies’
sustainable development, animator: Barbara JANKOWSKA (UEP, Poland)

4C <proposals> Proposals from posi1ve experiences of social and
ecological innova1on – Proposi1ons issues d’expériences
• 4C Aims:
• to show and study social and ecological innovations, and to make suggestions
to public stakeholders to sustain these innovations.
• to mobilize entrepreneurship of the social economy sector in order to enlarge
the survey of such innovative and drafting of suggestion at European level
• To analyse how politics stakeholders and public policies can help social and
ecological innovation
• good practices in socio‐ecological innovation
Animator of task 4C: Jean­Guy HENCKEL, COCAGNE (France)
• Subtask <<widening>> How politics can help ecological and social
innovation? ‐ animated by Julia FERNÁNDEZ QUINTANILLA, ACCEM (Espana).
• Subtask <<experiences>> Inventory of existing innovative experiences ‐
animated by Évelyne BRUNAU, Relais Emploi (France)

4D. <employment> innova1ve employment – humanis1c workplace for
crea1vity and personal development of working people
• Aims: To understand new economic activities, employment and ways of working
which are needed in socio‐ecological transition and innovative forms of work to
develop not only the performance of companies but personal development of
people as well.
• The use of the living lab paradigm and methodology as a support tool of open
innovation ecosystems process. Liven lab should empower citizens, as end‐user, to
in=luence the development of innovative services, industry to develop new
sustainable ideas and also policy makers for exploring new policies and regulations
in real‐life scenarios to evaluate their potential impacts before their
implementations.
• The cooperation among stakeholders, as a source of innovation for creation of new
economic activity, will be re=ined, implemented and experimented on several
themes, domains and regions in our living lab through seven key variables (new
jobs and employment, high performance organizations, creative work, collective
intelligence, social performance, participatory processes and digital socialization)
which will enable socio‐ecological transition success.
• Animator of taks 4D: Eddie SOULIER, UTT (France)

Subtasks of task 4D
• Subtask <<Innovative employment and job prospective>> Job prospective and new forms of occupational
choice needed in socio‐ecological transition‐ animated by Aline SCOUARNEC, IAE de Caen and ESSEC, and
Mohamed TISSIOUI, IAE de Caen (France).
• Subtask <<High performance ecosystems and organizations>> Organizational characteristics related to high
performance. Cross‐territorial‐sectoral assessments of high performance (organizational design/innovation, modes
of learning, professional development, deployment of skills over lifecycles – including employment of older
workers) and socio‐economic environments that foster it.– animated by Robert LINDLEY, IER‐ University of
Warwick (United Kingdom).
• Subtask <<Creative workplaces>> Cases and strategies to create places where we live, work and participate
which promote creativity, self‐expression, rich human interaction and social dynamics with productivity, security
and less risks – animated by Eddie SOULIER, UTT (France). Team members: Francis ROUSSEAUX, Reims University
and IRCAM (France).
• Subtask <<Social capital and collective intelligence>> Factors that facilitate collective intelligence, de=ine as
groups of individuals doing things collectively that seem intelligent, to transform collaborative work, in the
perspective of socio‐ecological transition ‐ Animated by François SILVA, ESCEM (France)
• Subtask << Participatory processes and contemporary forms of controls>> Put out of balance the increase in
participation (including eParticipation or e‐Democracy in a context of the development of social media in the public
sphere and the building of new forms of "social authority") and variables expressing news power relations and
forms of control into the organizations in order to understand and evaluate if these new forms of power are a
crucial factor of sustainable innovation – animated by Geraldine de La RUPELLE, ESCEM (France).
• Subtask <<Digital socialization >> With a survey which will explore the uses and practices in ICT organizations
from both the commercial sector and non‐pro=it sector and institutions (local administration) anchored in distinct
territories in Europe (City, State or province, country), we intend to question the link between the establishment of
CSAI (Community Services and Applications on the ICT) in intranets 2.0, ownership by employees for reasons of
social coherence and managerial ef=iciency, and the positive impact of these CSAI on the well‐being of employees –
animated by Olivier GALIBERT, University of Burgundy (France) and Carsten WILHELM, University of Burgundy
(France).

Transversal task <<Living lab as a support tool to the
WP4 innova1on process>>
• As a response to the socio‐economic transition, we propose to establish a
living lab as a support tool to the (open) innovation (ecosystems) process.
Our main hypothesis is that the seven variables of our research framework
‐ new jobs and employment, high performance organizations, creative
work, collective intelligence, social performance, participatory processes
and digital socialization – constitute main factors that will in=luence
innovation process in socio‐ecological transition. In order to prove it, the
living lab paradigm is the best way to experiment the ideation of the
innovation process as a result of cooperation among different group of
participants (society, research, business and policy) and to analyze the
results of innovation in different areas of usage, in particular on
employment and humanistic work (task 4D).
• Animated by Eddie SOULIER, UTT (France).

4E. Synthe1c Report
• The aim of this task is to integrate the results of task 4A‐4D into one
research report.
• The series of working papers “Innovation in socio‐economical
transition” will be published based on the best practices, practical
solutions and empirical models of integrated innovations.
• Animator: Aleksandra Gawel, Uniwersytet Ekonomiczny w
Poznaniu (Poland)
• Team members: Rafael Cáceres, Marek Rekowski, Jean‐Guy Henckel,
Eddie SOULIER

Deliverables
The main deliverable of WP4: book “The models of integrated innovation in socio‐ecological
transition”
The deliverables of tasks:
• Task 4A: Report
• Task 4B:
– Report: “Recommendations to the central and regional institutions of solutions fostering
entrepreneurship and sustainable development of a region”
– Book: “Innovations as production factor in territorial perspective”
– Book: „Regional map for socio‐economic development model”
– Report: “New solutions and practical application of sustainable development in the district heating
companies”
– Book: “Implications of coopetition for socio ecological transition”
• Task 4D:
– Sub‐task : “digital socialization”
– Report : Recommendation to develop the well‐being according to ef=icient et cooperative uses of
Intranet 2.0 solutions
– Book : “Perspectives and limits of the cooperative and collaborative Intranet on the well‐being
employees”

Thank you for your attention
Dziękuję za uwagę