AbstractResearch about innovation management explores how the future is created—who is creating it (organizations, collaborations, etc.), for what aims (customer satisfaction, market performance, etc.), and with what broader effects (social, environmental, etc.). With this extended essay, we explore the potential futures of innovation management research in three ways. First, we briefly review the history of past research agendas and priorities published in the Journal of Product Innovation Management (JPIM), highlighting three broad topic areas (technological, social/environmental, and organizational) that have emerged over time and their potential disruptive implications for innovation management research. Second, we describe the outcome of a gathering of leading scholars in innovation management tasked with the challenge of identifying critical research paths for our field. This collaboration resulted in five “deep dive” essays into areas ripe for innovation management research in the years ahead: liquid innovation, artificial intelligence in innovation, business model innovation, public value innovation, and responsible innovation. Third, we reflect on this expansive effort and offer a discussion of implications (tensions, challenges, and opportunities) for future innovation management scholarship.

In recent publications, entrepreneurship researchers have begun to note the changing environments underrepresented racial minority (URM) entrepreneurs face in the modern world (Bates et al., 2022; Peterson and Crittenden, 2020). We build upon these extant studies by reconceptualizing the URM entrepreneur by noting (a) their historical role as wealth creators in the formation of the United States, (b) their approaches to entrepreneurship, which includes cultural empowerment as an outcome, and (c) their distinctive voices as business owners that manage to survive, and even thrive, despite the institutional and environmental barriers they face as racial minorities. Unique to this study is the deconstruction of the URM entrepreneur (Ogbor, 2000) by URM academics, who have themselves also experienced racial inequities. Thus, we are able to reveal new insights about the URM entrepreneur that have previously not been addressed by other researchers and expose research gaps that we encourage addressing by the academy. This analysis culminates in the proposal of a new theory of the URM entrepreneur that reflects our findings.

Few studies in the business ethics literature explore marginalized populations, such as the racially minoritized entrepreneur. This absence is an ethical issue for the business academy as it limits the advancement of racial epistemologies. This study explores how this exclusionary space emerges within the academy by identifying white solipsistic behavior, an 'othering' of minoritized populations. Using a multi-method approach, we find the business literature homogenizes the racially minoritized business owner regardless of race/ethnic origin and categorizes them as lacking in comparison to White entrepreneurs. A critical discourse analysis of university entrepreneurship website language and images reveals that the racially minoritized are presented as the outgroup. The language used to describe entrepreneurs was found to be predominantly agentic, building a hegemonic categorization of White men dominating entrepreneurship. Troublingly, but consistent with the literature review, when racialized minorities were present in images, we found them to be marginalized. Employing an experimental design to mock-up four websites featuring student entrepreneurs differing by race and gender, we ask 'what if we make these under-represented entrepreneurs visible?' Results show that women, and specifically racially minoritized women, have a greater impact on the entrepreneurial interests of university students compared to men. Overall, the results provide empirical evidence for white solipsism in the business academy. We call for self-reflexivity to transparentize the 'invisible' racially minoritized entrepreneur and fill the 'white space' by changing the framing and context of business research to be more inclusive.

Considerable research has explored various drivers of entrepreneurial intent (EI), including the effects of race or gender separately (e.g., Edelman, Brush, Manolova, & Greene, 2010). Our study builds on this previous work by considering the intersection between race and gender, a unique and needed broadening of perspective as race and gender do not exist in isolation from each other. Applying both role congruity and social identity theory, this study considers an individual’s EI through an intersectional lens. Using a sample of 562 student respondents from five universities across the U.S., an experiment examines entrepreneurial intent to participate in entrepreneurship programs after exposure to one of five website conditions intentionally varied in terms of racial and gendered language and imagery. Our findings reveal that intersectionality matters as students responded to the conditions significantly differently dependent upon the race-gender intersection. Overall, the highest positive influence in entrepreneurial intent across all students, regardless of race or gender, resulted from exposure to the racial-minority-female-centric website condition.

Our work is motivated by the empirical finding that Benefit corporations (B corps) that pursue certification experience a short-term slowdown in financial performance. To shed light on this finding, we examine whether entrepreneurial orientation (EO) changes across eight weeks in a sample (n = 17) of B corps pursuing certification relative to a sample (n = 24) of emerging ventures not pursuing B corp certification. Our abductive, exploratory research finds that EO does not change over time as a function of B corp certification pursuit. However, after further examination of these data, findings show that firms pursuing B corp certification, at the study launch, demonstrated lower EO, and that the EO gap between the two types of companies remained throughout the study. We found this curious, and we thus examined our data for possible explanations with regard to prosocial motivation. We then augmented our quantitative data with qualitatively derived insights from eight semistructured interviews with participants to more fully examine the developmental processes at work in B corp certification pursuit. We discuss the implications of our findings, from both theoretical and practical points of view, and we describe multiple compelling lines of future research that can build on this exploratory research.

This symposium highlights the importance of gender and diversity in entrepreneurial opportunities and the role that entrepreneurial ventures play in solving social and environmental challenges. By exploring entrepreneurial diversity in terms of people, contexts, and mission – by women and minorities, in higher education, Latin America, through crowdfunded organizations, etc. – the key objective of this symposium is to explore how communication, team diversity, and the practice of sustainable entrepreneurship can be enhanced by gender and diversity considerations. The papers in the symposium broaden our understanding of factors that have come to shape the practice of sustainable entrepreneurship and opportunities for new venture creation to generate social impact. New Venture Start-up Teams: Economic Sustainability, Survivability, and Diversity Presenter: Dawn DeTienne; Colorado State U. Presenter: Troy Victor Mumford; Colorado State U. Presenter: M. Travis Maynard; Colorado State U. The Battle of the Sexes: An Empirical Investigation of Founder Gender Effects in Environmental Eship Presenter: Siddharth Vedula; Babson College Presenter: Sanwar A. Sunny; U. of Baltimore Complements or substitutes? An Organizational learning perspective on female mindset diffusion Presenter: Lilach Trabelsi; U. of Geneva Presenter: Maurizio Zollo; Imperial College Business School Presenter: Mario Daniele Amore; Bocconi U. Presenter: Paola Profeta; Bocconi U. Women and Responsible Entrepreneurship, Evidence from B Corporations in Latin America Presenter: Jorge Davalos; U. del Pacífico Presenter: Maria Priale; U. del Pacífico Presenter: Bryan Daza; U. del Pacifico Presenter: Frances Ninahuanca; U. del Pacifico Institutional Constraints in the Informal Economy: Decision to Register in an Informal Market Presenter: Arielle Newman; U. of Southern Mississippi Mirror vs. Mold: Do University Websites Create Bias in Male-dominated Majors? Presenter: Rosanna Garcia; U. of Denver Presenter: Dan Baack; Ball State U. Developing Sustainability Learning at Higher Education Institutions Presenter: Beatriz Rivera; U. of Puerto Rico Presenter: Sylvia Lopez-Palau; U. of Puerto Rico The Climate Change Entrepreneur: Realizing Imaginary Futures Presenter: Kathi Kaesehage; U. of Edinburgh Presenter: Richard T. Harrison; U. of Edinburgh

The B Corporation movement completed a decade in 2018. Scholarly interest in B Corporations and Benefit Corporations (hereafter B Corps) has kept pace with the proliferation of certified B Corps across the globe. Between 2009-18, there were 191 papers and book chapters written on B Corps (Gehman, Grimes, & Cao, forthcoming). This surge can be attributed to the fertile context that the B Corp movement provides for research on sustainable business. At the same time, the context presents challenges including the limitations of the certification data. In this symposium, we bring together researchers who have been studying B Corps. The symposium’s objective is twofold. First, we will showcase how the B Corp context provides important research opportunities. We will also provide tips on ways to circumvent its limitations enroute to crafting novel contributions within established academic fields. The papers in this symposium illustrate breadth of the B Corp phenomenon, exploring the antecedents, processes, and outcomes of B Corp certification and/or incorporation. Second, we will discuss the important research questions that can be asked, and potential data sources and data collection strategies amenable to answering these questions. Legislating a Stakeholder Value Paradigm: A Study of the Passage of Benefit Corporation Law Presenter: Kunyuan Qiao; Cornell U. Presenter: Shiyang Fan; U. of Electronic Science and Technology of China Renewing Vows: Explaining Bolstering Commitment to Doing Good Presenter: Garima Sharma; U. of New Mexico Presenter: Alim J. Beveridge; The U. of Nottingham, China Presenter: Joel Gehman; U. of Alberta Impact Investment, Nascent B Corps, and B Analytics Presenter: Liz Tracy; North Carolina State U. Presenter: Jessica Thomas; North Carolina State U. Presenter: Ryan Honeyman; LIFT Economy Presenter: Jeffrey M. Pollack; NC State U. Selling Sustainability Practices: Theory of Authenticity Presenter: Matthew Grimes; Cambridge Judge Business School Presenter: Joel Gehman; U. of Alberta Cultural Making through the B Corp Label: Marketing the “Force for Good” Presenter: Emily Medley; Doctoral Student, U. of Tennessee, Knoxville Presenter: Rosanna Garcia; U. of Denver

Developing eco-innovations using open innovation comes with a distinct set of challenges as the dual goals of economic and environmental value creation produce tension that is not easily overcome in a multi-stakeholder network. These incongruent goals are inherent in an open eco-innovation network and potentially involve governmental agencies, regulators, and non-governmental organizations along with suppliers and other partners. Consequently, they add a layer of complexity to the creation and capture of value throughout the innovation network. Thus, in this study, we ask: What are the challenges in creating and capturing value in open eco-innovation networks? Based on an embedded case study of a network developing eco-innovation over a six-year period in the maritime industry in Denmark, this paper identifies challenges and links them to their impact on value creation and value capture. Our findings indicate that firms and partners are less innovative and more conservative in their approaches to innovation than has previously been observed in open innovation partnerships. This research contributes to the eco-innovation knowledge base by demonstrating how extracting value from open eco-innovation is complicated as value is created at the micro and meso levels of the network, yet, a major goal of value capture is at the environment and social macro level. Thus, our results indicate that firms are less willing to commit resources and knowledge to co-creation, thereby negatively impacting value capture for the entire network, the society and/or the environment. Using open innovation to address "grand" societal challenges requires understanding value creation and value capture within this micro-meso-macro systemic framework of competing goals. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

New environmental regulations and increased environmental awareness can promote ecoinnovation; a distinct type of innovation aimed to incorporate both environmental and economic values. Eco-innovations often require resource complementarities of multiple suppliers and the continuous involvement of business customers. This paper elaborates on the process of cocreating eco-innovation in the context of a network of multiple stakeholders. Prior studies stress the importance of co-creating innovations. However, co-creation in ecoinnovation may face the paradox that environmental improvements can lead to economic constraint and thus jeopardize the achievement of economic value propositions. Yet, there is scant research on the challenges suppliers, customers and network administrators face when cocreating eco-innovations. A longitudinal case study of a network aimed to develop eco-innovations for the maritime industry in Northern Denmark is analyzed to reveal challenges of co-creating eco-innovations. Applying a multi-stakeholder network theory perspective, we identify challenges acknowledged by prior research such as power imbalance, role conflicts and divergent value expectations. New insights from our findings are how these challenges are distinctive for ecoinnovations and how the different challenges resonate throughout the ecosystem. The paper moreover highlights challenges linked to the complex combination of economic and environmental goals underlying an eco-innovation.

This chapter focuses on how a sustainability approach can be merged with design thinking to develop socially responsible and environmentally sustainable products. It merges with design for sustainability insights to provide a means whereby consumers become inseparable partners in ensuring the longevity of our natural, social, and economic environments. A sustainable perspective to design thinking approach is necessary if environmental and related social and economic issues are to be targeted and addressed effectively. As a means to evaluate more critically the various design for "X" strategies, design for sustainability (DfS) (also referred to as design for efficiency), design for effectiveness (DfEffv) and design for environment (DfEnv) are presented as the three overarching approaches that encompass most of the more specific design strategies. The design thinking for sustainability (DTfS) approach draws on the strengths of the three, and proactively includes the consumer as a co-development partner.

Coopetition is generally referred to simultaneous cooperation and competition between organizations. In this paper, we limit our attention to direct competitors that cooperate with each other. Based on the previous literature, we define coopetition as simultaneous cooperation of direct competitors in some areas of business and competition in other areas of business. Specifically, we focus on one particular type of coopetition, “collective marketing coopetition,” where all or most competitors in an industry cooperate in order to promote a new idea, a new technology, or a new standard collectively.

Abstract In this article we offer an organizing framework, or typology, for the different types of innovations that a firm may create or experience. Because of the plethora of terms used to label innovations, the focus here is on the most widely referenced types of innovations: product/service versus process, radical versus incremental, technological versus administrative, architectural versus modular, and disruptive versus sustaining. Having a common way of conceptualizing innovations provides researchers and managers a foundation for gaining a greater understanding on how to manage different types of innovations in the firms portfolio.

It's no secret that some of the most successful companies, such as 3M, Procter & Gamble, Microsoft, and Mercedes-Benz, are also known for their new product development strategies. Creating and Marketing New Products and Services teaches the key business and marketing principles needed to successfully design and launch new products and services

We look beyond the well-trodden question of why firms take a sustainability orientation and instead consider how they do so by investigating the mechanisms that enable and facilitate firms’ effective adoption of sustainable market orientation as well as considering the role of innovation in addressing sustainability concerns. We find systematic patterns in the ways that the firms in our sample responded to the challenge of adopting a sustainable market orientation, and specifically the availability, activation and application of two types of important resources evident in innovations: affordances and effectivities. These resources incite business model innovations, which in turn provide the structure facilitating sustainability initiatives. We offer a theoretic model of how these elements relate to the successful adoption of sustainable market orientation and then offer testable propositions about these implications.

Behavioral research shows that reasons for and reasons against adopting innovations differ qualitatively, and they influence consumers’ decisions in dissimilar ways. This has important implications for theorists and managers, as overcoming barriers that cause resistance to innovation calls for marketing approaches other than promoting reasons for adoption of new products and services. Consumer behavior frameworks in diffusion of innovation (DOI) studies have largely failed to distinctly account for reasons against adoption. Indeed, no study to date has tested the relative influence of adoption and resistance factors in a single framework. This research aims to address this shortcoming by applying a novel consumer behavior model (i.e., behavioral reasoning theory) to test the relative influence of both reasons for and, importantly, reasons against adoption in consumers’ innovation adoption decisions. Based on two empirical studies, one with a product and a second with a service innovation, findings demonstrate that behavioral reasoning theory provides a suitable framework to model the mental processing of innovation adoption. Implications for managers and researchers are discussed.

We propose an approach for using data on social interactions (e.g., number of recommendations received by consumers, number of recommendations given by adopters, number of social ties) in order to improve the forecasts made by extant diffusion models. We extend major extant diffusion models to capture explicitly the generation of social interactions and their impact on adoption. In particular, we extend the discrete-time versions of the Mixed Influence Model (Bass model), the Asymmetric Influence Model, and the Karmeshu-Goswami Model. The extended models may be calibrated using a combination of social interactions data and penetration data. A field study conducted in collaboration with a Consumer Packaged Goods company suggests that the incorporation of social interactions data results in improved diffusion forecasts. The field study also suggests that the benefit of using social interactions data comes in great part from an improved ability to select, based on in-sample fit, the model that will produce the best forecasts.

This is an electronic companion to "Improving Penetration Forecasts Using Social Interactions Data."

Technologically-oriented firms must allocate resources between exploration (research) and exploitation (development) activities. While scholars have emphasised the need for a mix between exploration and exploitation, some firms consciously choose to specialise only in either exploration or exploitation. The reasons for such a strategic posture could be many, including rigidities emanating from resources or routines. While previous studies suggest that an exploration/exploitation mix is necessary for success in an innovation strategy, focused strategies have recently come into research focus. We adopt a methodological approach using case studies combined with an agent-based simulation model in order to learn about the effectiveness of specialisation strategies. The results suggest that an exploration-based specialisation strategy can have a relative advantage over an exploitation-based specialisation strategy, and a balanced strategy is not absolutely necessary to ensure innovation success. We find that as competitive intensity increases, the relative advantage of exploration-based specialisation strategy diminishes.