ABSTRACT Academic Summary Product introduction events are frequent across industries, countries, and other contexts and part of the innovation strategy of many companies. However, the future performance of new products is uncertain, posing significant risks for firms and investors and leading to heterogeneous stock market responses. Identifying the generalized average effect of product introductions on firm performance and the drivers that may lower or enhance this stock market response remains imperative. This meta‐analysis synthesizes 1089 effects across 71 studies, quantifying the cumulative abnormal returns of the stock market in response to product introduction events. On average, product introduction events result in positive cumulative abnormal returns (CAR = 0.70%) but show substantial heterogeneity. However, the effect is strongly influenced by the type of event (i.e., externally‐generated announcements with a 2.60%‐points higher CAR than firm‐generated announcements) and a firm's industry (i.e., CARs are 1.90 [1.90, 1.67, 2.08] %‐points lower for durables [financial services, hospitality, pharmaceuticals] compared to consumer packaged goods). Further, temporal CAR patterns indicate that anticipatory effects (e.g., from information leakage) dominate the stock market response, with higher abnormal returns arising before (vs. after) the event. However, this temporal effect pattern reverses for externally‐generated announcements, indicating weaker anticipatory effects and a stronger information shock at the event. Finally, compared to physical goods, CARs for services are higher in countries with a higher percentage of services of gross domestic product. Managerial Summary Product introduction events happen frequently across industries, countries, and other contexts. This research shows through a quantitative assessment of 71 studies that product introduction events create value for firms, generating an average positive stock market response of about 0.70%. But the stock market response to product introduction events varies considerably across event types, event timing, industries, and countries. The strongest driver of investor response is the source of the announcement. Product introductions communicated by independent third parties, such as regulatory agencies, generate substantially higher market reactions than firm‐generated announcements. The analysis further shows that markets often react before official announcements, likely due to information leakage and anticipation. Product introductions in consumer packaged goods tend to generate stronger stock market responses than those in other sectors. Finally, the market of the stock market matters: while a higher share of services of the GDP is generally associated with lower CARs, this effect is alleviated for new service introductions. Managers should therefore pay close attention to when, where and through whom they are communicating product introductions.
ABSTRACT Academic Abstract Innovations designed to address grand challenges within the social innovation sector can have unintended consequences, particularly where organizations pursue triple‐bottom‐line objectives under resource constraints. Yet research on coupling responsible innovation (RI) and sustainable business model innovation (SBMI) largely frames this as aspirational rather than theoretical, leaving it conceptually underdeveloped and empirically underexplored. Accordingly, this study asks: How can organizations operating within institutionally weak environments embed RI to make their SBMI processes more responsible? Utilizing a 10‐year longitudinal study of a social enterprise delivering off‐grid solar in Africa, we identify three SBMI cycles and develop a process framework for RI‐SBMI coupling. We outline four RI‐shaped organizational capacities that support business model evolution as a dynamic, principle‐driven process in which RI functions as a sensitizing framework rather than a fixed ethical template. We further demonstrate that paradox management, through the mechanisms of experimentation, relinquishing control, and value prioritization, is central to responsible SBMI. We also show that RI principles are not applied equally; instead, their importance changes depending on organizational capacity and the part of the business model. Finally, by grounding these dynamics in an institutionally weak context, the study advances theory on responsible business model evolution. Practitioner Abstract Low‐income households in resource‐constrained settings characterized by rural poverty, limited infrastructure, and constrained market access are some of the most vulnerable to the impacts of grand challenges. Therefore, to avoid unintentional reinforcement of structural inequalities, it is essential to conduct regular, inclusive consultation with stakeholders. Ideally, this is undertaken during SBM development but can and should be applied to existing SBMs. Within institutionally weak contexts, systematically identifying and assessing opportunities, both internal and external to the organization, and innovating to accommodate them can improve geographic reach and market competitiveness. When working with environmentally friendly technologies and practices, a critical, reflexive review should be continuously undertaken, ideally incorporating in‐house expertise and neutral, external input (e.g., from research organizations). The creation of greater social and environmental values will require a willingness to sacrifice some economic value capture. Therefore, coupling the principles between RI and SBMI can help achieve this while maintaining economic viability. For profit‐making companies, inclusive stakeholder engagement may enhance organizational legitimacy and build a low‐income customer base, while systematic identification of opportunities supports competitiveness and innovation. Coupling RI and SBMI helps balance social, environmental, and economic objectives, potentially improving credibility.
Responsible innovation (RI) challenges profit-driven firms to reconcile market pressures with societal and environmental responsibilities. We ask how firms integrate anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion, and responsiveness (ARIR) into responsible innovation management (RIM), and how national context and cultural dimensions shape the degree and form of RIM. Using inductive grounded theory, we conducted 60 semi-structured interviews with innovation managers and senior decision makers in multinational firms in Germany, India, and Japan. We develop a culturally anchored conceptual model in which external environments shape national dominant innovation foci, and both national innovation focus and cultural values act as antecedents of ARIR enactment, with top management's RI advocacy amplifying integration when responsibility is not institutionally dominant. Cross-national comparisons reveal pillar-specific patterns. German firms show broad ARIR alignment across all four pillars. Japanese firms exhibit a high degree of ARIR integration, but a form of RIM in which governance emphasis falls on anticipation, reflexivity, and inclusion, with responsiveness less developed as a proactive routine. Indian firms exhibit more variable alignment that strengthens when top management champions RI. By theorizing RIM as a process-centric, variance-sensitive construct and explaining its cultural contingencies, the study advances innovation management research on how firms institutionalize RI under persistent economic-responsibility tensions.
Academic Summary The prominence of environmental issues among consumers has led to the rapid development and launch of sustainable product innovations (SPIs). Developing SPIs can yield favorable financial outcomes for companies, but introducing these innovations requires major investments, while returns are highly uncertain. At the same time, positive consumer perceptions of SPIs are imperative for their success. Prior research suggests that SPIs with a higher degree of innovativeness experience faster innovation adoption. However, empirical research on the impact of radical versus incremental SPIs on consumer perceptions and the underlying mechanisms explaining these perceptions is scant. Drawing on attribution theory and conducting four consumer experiments and one meta-analysis, we examine whether and how consumers make internal and external attributions about companies' motivations behind introducing SPIs. The findings reveal that radical (vs. incremental) SPIs result in favorable consumer outcomes because consumers attribute intrinsic motivations to companies introducing such innovations, a relationship moderated by companies' sustainability reputation. In contrast, attributions of companies' extrinsic motivations do not play a significant role in this regard. This study contributes to the literature on the impact of SPI on consumer perceptions and outcomes. Furthermore, it provides managerial guidance to companies intending to introduce SPIs.Managerial Summary As environmental concerns grow, companies are under increasing pressure to develop sustainable products. Yet, not all sustainable product innovations (SPIs) are created equal and how consumers respond depends heavily on the type of innovation a company introduces. This research shows that radical SPIs (those that use entirely new technologies to create a sustainable product or to embed sustainability as a core product attribute) outperform incremental ones (those that modify existing products to improve eco-efficiency, replace harmful materials, or enhance recyclability) across a range of outcomes that matter to business: purchase intentions, willingness to pay, perceived company authenticity, and overall attitudes toward the company. The key reason is that consumers interpret radical SPIs as driven by genuine environmental commitment, whereas incremental changes are seen as business-as-usual responses to competitive or regulatory pressure. For managers, this means that investing in truly transformative sustainable innovations pays off not just environmentally, but commercially. Equally important is a company's sustainability reputation: firms with an established track record of environmental responsibility amplify these positive effects, as consumers are more likely to trust their motives. For policymakers, incentivizing radical sustainable innovations creates a twofold benefit, real ecological impact alongside stronger market performance.
Academic Summary Hype often helps emerging technology ecosystems gain early support for their innovative value propositions, but the initial excitement around the technology typically vanishes at some point. This decrease in excitement and support may lead some ecosystems to fail while others are resilient and recover. With little research investigating the post-hype phase, our understanding of how firms in an emerging technology ecosystem try to recover from the loss of excitement and support remains limited. To overcome this limitation, our study explores the resilience-seeking process in the ecosystem of xReality (XR) technologies, encompassing augmented, virtual, and mixed reality. Employing an embedded single-case approach, we examine post-hype activities of three archetypes of firm actors (core technology providers, complementors, and implementers) through 44 interviews, industry event participation, and archival analysis. Our study reveals three sets of post-hype activities with which the firms responded to the challenges they faced after the hype bubble had burst: forging new links, restoring confidence, and adjusting tech. It also finds that the three firm archetypes vary in their engagement in these activities. We incorporate the findings into a framework of post-hype ecosystem resilience seeking and derive future research directions.Managerial Summary Firms from multiple industries develop and apply new technology (like virtual reality or artificial intelligence) to their business models, creating an "ecosystem" of firms that help form a new consumer market. The initial hype generated by new technology helps ecosystems but typically decreases at some point, causing some ecosystems to fail while others recover. Research to date provides little understanding of how firms within these ecosystems try to recover from the loss of excitement and support. To this end, our study explores the ecosystem of xReality (XR) technologies, including augmented, virtual, and mixed reality. We interview 44 key decision makers across three types of firms: core technology providers, developers of complementary goods and services, and implementers that apply new technology to a specific use case. Although these types of firms vary in their approach, our findings indicate three key activities that support ecosystem resilience in the post-hype period. First, firms reinvigorate stakeholder interest and support by developing unique combinations of new technology and other emerging technologies. Second, firms restore stakeholder trust by focusing on the most transformative uses for new technology. Finally, firms redefine and refresh an ecosystem through advancements and improvements to new technology and the terminology that defines it.
Academic Summary Responsible innovation (RI) holds profound promise for addressing many pressing problems by injecting specific and forward-looking principles into innovation processes. However, central elements of RI frameworks, such as the prioritization of deliberation and transparency, can create tension when applied in market-oriented domains where firms often seek competitive advantage through innovation. To help address this tension, we examine how firms' collaboration networks impact RI outcomes. We draw on research in collaborative innovation at the science-industry interface to develop hypotheses linking specific patterns of collaboration in terms of network structure and composition to invention and commercialization outcomes. We test our hypotheses in the field of green chemistry (a subfield of chemistry that seeks to prevent environmental problems before they occur by (re)designing chemicals and chemical production processes at a molecular level) using two distinct data sources: green chemistry patents and nominations for the Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards. Our findings show stark differences in the relationship between network attributes and invention versus commercialization outcomes, respectively. These differences address tensions in applying RI in a business context by showing how more nuanced approaches to collaborating can lead to better outcomes aligned with specific RI goals, including avoiding harms and promoting sustainability.Managerial Summary Shepherding innovations from early-stage discoveries to market-ready products and processes is a complex and fraught endeavor. It also lies at the core of many firms' strategies for seeking and sustaining advantage in competitive markets. Responsible innovation (RI) research recognizes the role firms play in developing and scaling innovative solutions to pressing problems, yet incorporating RI principles into this already daunting process creates tension. For example, deliberation and transparency are central principles of RI, yet these can also impinge innovative capacity and erode competitive advantage. In this study, we help address this tension by examining specific approaches to collaborative innovation efforts at the science-industry interface and map these to specific outcomes valued by firms: patented inventions and commercialized products. We anchor our analysis in the field of green chemistry (a subfield within chemistry that seeks to prevent environmental problems before they occur by (re)designing chemicals and chemical production processes at a molecular level). Our results suggest that the tensions in applying RI in a business context may be less intractable than they initially appear and that firms seeking to be responsive to RI principles while also strengthening their competitive advantage can do more than simply "strike a balance" between these objectives.
This article develops an evolutionary model that synthesizes emergent and deliberate innovation processes to explain how organizational adaptability is constituted. Existing research on "emergent" innovation processes tends to view these as diametrically opposed to "deliberate" action, applying each attribute with little nuance and relying on an under-complex understanding of the interplay between evolutionary mechanisms. We translate insights from Niklas Luhmann's concept of adaptation processes and sociocultural theory of evolution into the organizational innovation management context to address these limitations. The resulting model systematically integrates distinct means-ends and end-means logics and identifies an intermediate "third" space where emergent dynamics prevail. Our model demonstrates how and why deliberate and emergent innovation processes are interdependent rather than mutually exclusive, jointly contributing to an organization's ability to both adapt to and shape its environment. After unfolding the subtle interplay between deliberate and emergent innovation processes from three coherent perspectives, we derive three related propositions. These insights, we argue, advance the theoretical discussion and practical understanding of innovation management in increasingly complex and uncertain environments, thereby providing a foundation for future research on emergent innovation processes and adaptability.
Academic Summary As firms navigate dynamic technological, market, and institutional environments, adaptability-and related notions such as flexibility and agility-have become central to innovation management. Yet, the literature is conceptually fragmented: multiple labels are applied with overlapping but inconsistent content, and few studies assess whether differing conceptualizations yield distinct predictions for innovation outcomes. Drawing on a dynamic capability lens, we synthesize prior research and define adaptability as an organizational capability grounded in the flexibility of abilities, resources, and processes that can, but need not, be paired with reactivity, proactivity, and/or speed to address shifting internal and external conditions. A multi-level meta-analysis of 549 effect sizes from 268 independent samples reveals an overall positive relationship between adaptability and innovation. Moreover, the meta-analytical approach supports the configural structure of adaptability: the adaptability-innovation relationship is most pronounced when all attributes of adaptability (flexibility, reactivity, proactivity, and speed) are present. Furthermore, the relationship is stronger for non-incremental than for incremental innovation, for larger firms, and in unstable institutional environments. By synthesizing the fragmented literature on adaptability, we provide a coherent, testable conceptualization of adaptability and explain why its impact on innovation appears generally positive yet heterogeneous across studies.Managerial Summary Adaptability is an important organizational capability connected to innovation. However, what exactly adaptability is, remains unclear, especially since related terms, such as flexibility or agility, are sometimes used interchangeably. We quantitatively aggregate evidence from a large body of prior research and find a clear pattern: flexibility, that is the capability to change, is the foundation. However, innovation is highest when flexibility is paired with three additional capabilities: (1) sense-and-respond to external change (reactivity), (2) anticipate and shape emerging opportunities (proactivity), and (3) move quickly (speed). Organizations that combine all these elements consistently innovate more. This advantage is largest for non-incremental innovation (e.g., new business models, new-to-the-firm offerings, major technology shifts), in large firms (where inertia is common), and in institutionally unstable environments (where rules and conditions change abruptly). Managers should not treat adaptability, flexibility, or agility as a slogan: Instead, they should build flexibility first, and then improve routines for early sensing, proactivity, and fast decision-making.
Academic Abstract Without recognizing how past failures bias subsequent choices, managers risk decisions that waste resources or prematurely abandon promising opportunities. This study draws on risk-type preference-shift theory and extends it with individual and organizational boundary conditions to examine how distinct failure experiences shape managers' willingness to persist with underperforming innovation projects. We conceptualize failure as a dichotomy, distinguishing commission errors (flops) from omission errors (missed opportunities). Our findings from two studies indicate that a recent commission error reduces the likelihood of persisting, while an omission error increases it. At the individual level, action-oriented decision-makers show a larger reduction in persistence after experiencing a commission error. Furthermore, rational thinkers do not differ in susceptibility to past failures; instead, they weigh specific attributes of the ongoing project more heavily when deciding whether to persist. At the organizational level, we observe that this effect depends on an organization's strategic orientation, that is, an exploratory orientation weakens (strengthens) the negative (positive) impact of commission (omission) errors. In contrast, an exploitative orientation amplifies the negative effects of commission errors. Together, these findings advance risk-type preference-shift theory and provide managers with clear guidance on when prior failures will lead them to persist with or abandon innovation projects.Managerial Abstract Decisions about whether to continue funding an underperforming innovation project are influenced by the most recent failure. After a flop, persistence decreases; after a missed opportunity, persistence increases. Action-oriented decision-makers emphasize the decline following a flop. State-oriented decision-makers are largely unaffected by a prior flop. Rational thinkers do not differ in their reactions to past failures but place greater emphasis on current project attributes, particularly proximity to completion and innovativeness. An exploration orientation reduces reactions to flops and boosts persistence after missed opportunities. An exploitation orientation increases the tendency to exit after flops. We recommend that companies and their managers keep a failure log that distinguishes between flops and missed opportunities; conduct structured postlaunch and postmortem reviews to classify failure types; seek neutral second opinions when previous failures might bias judgments; use reframing prompts to avoid anchoring on past outcomes; assemble review panels that include action- and state-oriented managers and involve rational thinkers for projects that are near completion or highly innovative; in exploratory settings, verify whether continued investment aligns with strategy rather than serving as a fallback for earlier inaction; in exploitative settings, implement delayed second-look procedures to prevent premature termination of projects with hidden potential.
Academic Summary This special issue advances an actionable understanding of how firms set up new product development (NPD) to deliver environmentally sustainable innovation. To organize this challenge, we introduce the CORE framework, which conceptualizes environmentally sustainable NPD along four interdependent domains: Conceptualization, Orchestration, Realization, and Environment. The CORE framework contributes by recasting environmentally sustainable innovation as a cross-phase product innovation management problem, showing how front-end opportunity formation, development-stage coordination, market realization, and contextual contingencies jointly shape sustainable innovation outcomes. Using this process-oriented lens, we synthesize prior research and show how the seven articles in this special issue extend understanding across these four domains. Specifically, the articles provide new evidence on customer co-creation in the front end of NPD, agile control and sustainability tensions in innovation portfolios, supplier concentration and substantive versus symbolic green innovation, the CSR-firm value link and the role of NPD versus marketing, the orchestration of innovation ecosystems to transform latent use contexts into manifest ones, and the cross-context contingencies of environmentally sustainable product innovation success. Building on this foundation, we identify key knowledge gaps and develop a CORE-based future research agenda that highlights promising questions across the four domains and the linkages between them. Managerial Summary Firms face growing pressure to develop products that are not only commercially successful but also environmentally sustainable. This special issue shows that success does not depend on isolated green initiatives, but on how firms set up their new product development (NPD) process from the start. We propose the CORE framework to help managers think about four connected areas: Conceptualization, Orchestration, Realization, and Environment. In practice, this means identifying sustainable opportunities early, coordinating functions and partners effectively during development, turning sustainability efforts into credible customer value, and adapting decisions to the regulatory, competitive, and institutional context. The articles in this special issue offer several practical lessons. They show that sustainability can encourage customer co-creation in the front end of NPD, that portfolio controls must balance agility and sustainability goals, and that supplier dependence can limit substantive green innovation. The findings also suggest that firms can scale growth and sustainability by orchestrating innovation ecosystems that turn latent opportunities into markets. In addition, markets respond more positively when firms embed sustainability in NPD rather than relying mainly on marketing claims. Overall, environmentally sustainable innovation requires aligned governance, cross-functional collaboration, stakeholder integration, ecosystem orchestration, and credible execution across the full NPD process.
Literature suggests that hedge fund activism is the most potent form of shareholder activism, often pressuring firms to prioritize shareholder value at the expense of innovation. Using a panel dataset of 302 listed U.S. firms with 2007 firm-year observations from 2008 to 2020, we explore this dynamic in the context of technology- and market-based breakthrough innovation, along with potential mitigation strategies. To better understand the interplay between stakeholder pressure and multiple stakeholder relationships, we link resource orchestration theory with team production theory. We argue that the negative influence of hedge fund activism on breakthrough innovation can be mitigated by greater career variety among top managers and greater relative tangibility of a firm's resource base. Our empirical findings broadly support these claims and suggest that adopting a more stakeholder-oriented perspective enhances understanding of how firms allocate resources to breakthrough innovation amid activist pressure.Managerial Summary This article examines how pressure from activist hedge funds relates to companies' ability to develop breakthrough innovations in the form of new products and services. We study large U.S. firms and track both hedge fund campaigns and subsequent innovation outcomes over time. Our results show that when activist hedge funds step in, firms tend to introduce less technologically advanced products in the following years. This suggests that strong short-term profit pressure can quietly shift portfolios away from high-risk, high-reward breakthrough innovation. However, the findings also show that top management teams whose members have worked across multiple functions (e.g., R&D, marketing, operations, finance) are better equipped to mitigate the impact of activist hedge funds on innovation. In addition, firms with a higher share of tangible assets, such as plants and equipment, are less exposed to such impacts. Managers and policymakers may learn that hedge fund activism does not automatically kill breakthrough innovation, but rather increases the importance of broad managerial experience and robust, tangible resource bases to keep such innovation alive under investor scrutiny.
Responsible innovation (RI) dynamics remain underexplored in Global South contexts, which have a high prevalence of micro- and small enterprises and are vulnerable to the devastating effects of industrial disasters. Only a few studies examine RI within such settings, where it is arguably needed most. Drawing on imprinting theory, we examine whether major industrial disasters reshape founders propensity to adopt firm-level RI practices and whether this effect depends on founders' gender. Using data from 388 founders of micro- and small enterprises in Bangladesh, we compare firms founded before versus after the 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse. Generalized linear model (GLM) analyses show that firms founded post-disaster report higher levels of RI practices adoption, but this imprint is heterogeneous. In pre-disaster conditions, female-founded firms report lower RI adoption than male-founded firms; while in post-disaster conditions, female-founded firms increase RI adoption substantially, closing much of the pre-disaster gender gap, whereas male-founded firms show little change. Post hoc analyses suggest this shift is driven by increased inclusivity and reflexivity dimensions of RI. In sum, we extend RI research to the most prevalent organizational form in the Global South and advance imprinting and event-oriented theorizing on how founder traits shape innovation responses to exogenous shocks.Managerial Summary Major industrial disasters reshape what communities, customers, and partners expect from firms on ethics, safety, and transparency. Using evidence from Bangladesh, where the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse claimed over 1100 lives, we show that firms founded after the disaster adopted RI practices at higher levels, a shift driven primarily by female-founded firms. This increase is associated with two RI dimensions: greater inclusivity and reflexivity among female founders, reflected in broader stakeholder engagement and more critical reflection on innovation decisions. These findings offer concrete guidance for managers and policymakers seeking to foster RI in Global South contexts. As an ongoing priority, and even in pre-disaster contexts, policymakers should establish multi-stakeholder dialogue forums bringing together civil society, NGOs, and local government to expand female founders' stakeholder focus beyond relatively narrow in-group networks. Managers could also create structured opportunities for female founders to reflect critically on their innovation processes and engage with diverse stakeholder perspectives, building firm-level inclusivity and reflexivity. After a disaster, policymakers and industry leaders should act swiftly, as this is when founders are most receptive to change, particularly female founders. Promptly deploying clear guidance, financial incentives, and RI-focused training can drive long-term shifts toward more responsible innovation practices.
An organizational resilience capability is essential for firms to adapt in an ever-changing world characterized by diverse crises and adversities. However, the mechanisms and contingencies needed to harness and channel organizational resilience capability remain uncertain. This article argues that this resilience capability, proactively developed in calmer times, only becomes apparent in a crisis, but its effectiveness relies on additional organizational capabilities around innovation and human resources. Using data from a sample of large Taiwanese firms collected in two waves during and after a crisis, we show how incremental and radical innovative capabilities mediate the relationship between a proactively developed organizational resilience capability and firm performance. Furthermore, we demonstrate the role of strategic human resource management practices in fostering and regulating this relationship and the functioning of innovative capabilities. Based on these findings, we provide implications for theory and practice.
For over two decades, firms have built platforms and engaged open innovation communities to improve and customize their products through widened participation in the design process. While the benefits of involving those outside a firm as co-designers have been well described, how co-design processes unfold over time at the boundary between those in an organization and an open online community remains poorly understood. Using the theoretical lens of boundary work and a five-year ethnographic study with a firm that pioneered co-design in the automotive industry, we develop a theoretical model that shows how and why co-design between the firm and its open online community evolved over time. We describe three different types of co-design (intimate, instrumental, and limited co-design) and show how these are intertwined with existing types of boundary work (collaborative, configurational, and competitive boundary work). Importantly, we unravel the dynamic shifts between different types of co-design and associated boundary work, showing the driving forces that precede shifts. Our research extends the boundary work literature by proposing forces that prompt organizations to shift between types of boundary work, illustrating how these forces are tied to characteristics of the environment and open community and are integral to the work of the organization. More broadly, this study contributes new insight into the temporal evolution of design collaboration between organizations and online communities.
The Circular Economy introduces ambiguity and complexity when developing products and services, by using materials and resources differently; innovations and related business models thus deviate markedly from those evident in the "linear economy". This reshapes the landscape for front-end of innovation activities, being especially challenging for incumbent firms that have long honed their innovation processes toward the dominant "linear" paradigm. Adopting a qualitative inquiry of eight multinational and well-established corporations, this study explores how incumbent firms reconfigure their "front-end" innovation processes as they start developing circular products and services. We conceptualize our findings in a grounded model of the "circular front-end innovation", illustrating how a shift in the dominant logics of incumbent firms-from linear to circular-influences activities in the front-end. We identify how these companies' front-end processes (opportunity identification and idea generation, concept design, and solution development) differ accordingly, with a need to broaden the idea search scope, conceptualize product-business model fit, and discover value from circularity. Our findings provide insights into how circular front-end processes are both constrained and enabled by considerations regarding materials and resource circulation, as well as the anticipation of circular business models, triggered by these considerations.
Despite their transformative potential, Industrial Internet of Things (IIoT) platforms often fail to evolve into scalable ecosystems. Research on IIoT platforms attributes failure to discrete factors such as governance misalignment or technological complexity and rarely considers how failure unfolds. This article adopts a structuration theory perspective to examine IIoT platform failure as a path-dependent process. Through a seven-year longitudinal case study of Alpha, a global industrial manufacturer, we identify four structuration mechanisms-structural embeddedness, misalignment, reproduction, and reversion-that progressively constrain platform scalability. Our findings reveal that failure is not a singular event but an emergent outcome shaped by recursive interactions between architecture, governance, and market structures, as well as strategic actions. We contribute to platform governance research by showing that IIoT platforms inherit, rather than impose, governance structures, making it crucial for firms to actively reshape contracting dependencies rather than replicating existing structures. Based on these insights, we provide recommendations for firms to design governance frameworks that foster openness, modularity, and ecosystem scalability from the outset. These insights offer a more dynamic understanding of IIoT platform evolution, informing theory and practice on overcoming the barriers to the scalability of IIoT platforms.
Academic Summary: Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a key strategy to achieving (e.g., environmental) sustainability. While many studies report a positive effect of CSR on firm value, growing evidence suggests practice often fails to unlock such effect. This equivocality may arise from conflicting theoretical perspectives, insufficient consideration of granular CSR activities, and/or neglecting the role of new product development (NPD). We address this equivocality through a theoretically unprejudiced exploration of the effects of a comprehensive set of CSR activities on firm value and by investigating the underexplored moderating role of NPD alongside that of marketing moderators. Econometric analysis of 3,107 firms across industries unveils that the largely overlooked CSR activities addressing social concern avoidance (e.g., by protecting stakeholders from environmental hazards) account for the greatest number of significant effects on firm value. Second, all significant effects of CSR activities on firm value are negative. Third, while all significant interaction effects of CSR activities and NPD on firm value are positive, most interactions with marketing instruments are negative. Overall, the findings highlight the critical role of NPD in potentially unlocking a positive effect of CSR on firm value. Even more so, they suggest treating CSR and firm value as separate strategic goals-akin to sustainability's people, planet, and profit objectives. Managerial Summary: While many firms invest in corporate social responsibility (CSR) initiatives not only to advance sustainability but also to drive firm value, this research shows that only a subset of CSR activities has a significant effect on firm value and that these effects are predominantly negative. Many of the CSR activities with significant effects relate to avoiding social or environmental harm, but their impact varies markedly across stakeholders, rendering aggregate CSR strategies misleading for managerial decision-making. Further, whether CSR activities undermine or support firm value depends critically on how they are implemented. For innovation and R&D managers, the findings suggest that CSR activities are most effective when embedded in new product development. For marketing managers, the findings urge caution, as heavy reliance on branding and other marketing tools to advance the firm's CSR objectives can amplify negative effects on firm value. For senior executives, the results suggest a need to treat CSR and firm value as distinct strategic goals and carefully balancing specific CSR activities rather than assuming uniform financial payoffs. For policy makers and regulators, the findings indicate that markets may penalize sustainability efforts, at least in the short term, underscoring the need for targeted regulatory support and incentives.
This study examines how external experts assist organizations in reframing problems by applying different reasoning logics in the early stages of the innovation process. Recent research emphasizes the need to interpret the ambiguity of the innovation environment to reframe problems. External experts can contribute by offering unconventional perspectives that help shift how problems are understood. While studies have explored the role of external experts in problem solving (e.g., ideation and evaluation), few have investigated their involvement in problem reframing. To this end, we conducted an ethnographic study of four strategic innovation projects in which firms collaborated with external experts of varying expertise. We analyze how experts assist innovation teams in moving from hypothetical to renewed frames using five distinct reasoning logics. Early on, experts use (1) reverse deduction and (2) reverse induction to identify common patterns. Upon encountering new perspectives, they rely on (3) explanatory abduction to explore alternative interpretations. This opens a dialogic space for imagination and insights generation through (4) speculative innovative abduction, and (5) moral innovative abduction. We contribute to research on problem reframing in innovation by showing how external experts support reframing not only by introducing new knowledge, but also by reshaping existing knowledge to foster renewed understanding.
Academic Summary Growing environmental challenges and sustainability imperatives have intensified firms' need to pursue environmentally sustainable product innovation (ESPI), leading to a surge of research examining the factors that determine its success. This study presents a meta-analysis of 182 independent samples and contributes to our understanding of ESPI in three major ways. First, by adopting the open systems theory, this meta-analysis presents a holistic, integrated examination of the driving factors of ESPI and assesses their relative importance, marking a significant leap in environmental sustainability and innovation management research. Second, by comparing these findings with established meta-analyses of product innovation, it reveals whether ESPI necessitates a novel theoretical paradigm or can be contextualized within established innovation-management frameworks. Although some of ESPI's success factors are common to conventional product innovation, this study highlights factors that are specific to ESPI, which suggests that the development of ESPI should be treated differently from that of conventional product innovation. Third, the analysis shows that ESPI's drivers are contingent upon the institutional context; national culture and level of economic development significantly moderate their effects. Collectively, these findings advance theory integration in sustainability and innovation management and offer actionable insights for managers and policymakers seeking to foster effective, context-sensitive ESPI strategies. Managerial Summary This study identifies several key actions managers can take to strengthen environmental sustainability. Firstly, managers must understand that environmentally sustainable product innovation is fundamentally different from conventional product innovation. Relying on existing innovation systems is insufficient; firms must adapt systems and processes to address green-specific demands. Secondly, developing a strong green market orientation is essential. Firms should monitor sustainability trends, anticipate shifts in eco-conscious consumer preferences, and engage customers early to co-create and validate green solutions. Thirdly, managers should embed green entrepreneurial orientation by encouraging employees to identify, evaluate, and act on sustainability-driven opportunities that create green value. Fourthly, building and integrating organizational capabilities, including technological, HRM, cross-functional, and knowledge-integration systems, is vital for agility and innovation effectiveness. Fifthly, fostering green culture and transformational leadership ensures employees are motivated and rewarded for sustainability-driven behaviors. Sixthly, leveraging external stakeholders wisely through collaboration with suppliers, customers, and NGOs enhances legitimacy and knowledge sharing while maintaining strong internal capabilities. Seventhly, managers should build and communicate a credible reputation through visible sustainability commitments and partnerships. Finally, adapting to institutional context is critical: strategies should align with national culture and economic development, emphasizing organizational learning in developing economies and advanced green technologies in developed contexts.
Academic Summary: In the realm of innovation studies, examining innovation responses-encompassing both adoption and resistance-has been a central focus for more than six decades. However, most innovation studies only focus on the behavioral dimension of these responses and simply equate resistance with non-adoption. We suggest that seeing resistance as the absence of adoption results in a flawed understanding of innovation responses, neglecting important negative aspects. Using insights from two psychological theories, we provide a theoretically advanced and more comprehensive conceptualization of innovation adoption and innovation resistance. More specifically, we suggest that resistance and adoption involve emotions and cognitions alongside behaviors and explain why adoption and resistance are distinct phenomena. Based on our new conceptualization, we present a typology of innovation responses that provides a more nuanced insight into how actors, such as citizens or consumers, respond to innovation. Finally, we explain the consequences of this perspective for innovation theory development, future research, and innovation practitioners. Managerial Summary: Innovation resistance is a persistent challenge, frequently hampering successful innovation introduction and causing significant financial and operational difficulties for companies. Understanding resistance is therefore critical for innovation managers. This article clarifies what resistance is, helps managers identify it, and distinguish it from other innovation responses. First, we argue that managers need to not only focus on behavioral resistance to innovation, but also consider the cognitive and emotional dimensions of resistance. Failing to do so may create blind spots, because the emotional and cognitive dimensions of resistance can signal underlying problems that actors have with the innovations and that later on may have behavioral consequences. Second, and importantly, we argue that managers need to distinguish resistance from the absence of adoption, as preventing resistance requires a distinct approach from stimulating adoption (or preventing non-adoption). We provide a practical 2 & times; 2 typology that helps practitioners to recognize the four distinct innovation response types: pure adoption, pure resistance, indifference, and ambivalence. Finally, we offer actionable strategies for addressing each response type, enabling managers to manage innovation processes more effectively.
