Navigating Sustainability Oriented Innovation Processes

IN

DEGREE PROJECT INDUSTRIAL MANAGEMENT, SECOND CYCLE, 15 CREDITS

STOCKHOLM SWEDEN 2019 ,

Navigating Sustainability Oriented Innovation

Processes

ALICE M. ERLANDSSON

RUBY GAYLONG

ABSTRACT

There is strong interest across industries and academia in exploring the potential of innovation to address global sustainability issues and hence assist in making a paradigm shift towards more sustainable practices. To overcome the challenges of sustainability it is not enough to inject incremental solutions but a paradigm shift should suggestively be aimed at. As a result Sustainability innovation is being approached more holistically as opposed to in the past when it mostly focused on process, product or organisational innovation. The concept ‘Sustainability Oriented Innovation’ (SOI) considers this holistic view and looks at innovation as a process or trajectory and considers sustainability from a both social, environmental as well as an economic perspective. For holistic solutions to arise it is evident that challenges need to be solved together in multi actor networks and not in an insular manner. Yet, researchers have in the past focused mostly on who should govern or be involved in sustainability innovation whilst there is a lack in understanding how it should be accomplished collectively. Understanding how different parties such as civil society, public authorities and industries can collaborate to create valuable solutions can be imperative for future sustainable development.

By combining SOI with Actor Network Theory (ANT) this paper sheds light on how actors engage in SOI processes and form a multi-actor network. Actor Network Theory helps deciphering the innovation process, viewing it as non-linear and continuously evolving negotiation between multiple actors rather than as an insular and linear process. Two SOI cases are examined through the theoretical lens of ANT to investigate the innovation process through moments of translations rather than static stages. As the integration of SOI and ANT is under researched this paper makes a theoretical contribution by integrating the theories and thus enriching this area. Findings emphasise how the focal actor, in a SOI process, engages with other actors in the multi-actor network. The findings can hence assist actors in initiating or transitioning towards Systems building approach by shedding light on how to navigate the complexities of the process and engage with other actors involved.

Keywords: Sustainability oriented innovation (SOI), Actor network theory (ANT), Systems building, Innovation as process

ABSTRAKT

Det finns ett starkt intresse för både industrier och akademiker att utforska potentialen av innovation för att lösa överskuggande globala hållbarhetsproblem. För att övervinna hållbarhetsutmaningarna räcker det inte med att injicera inkrementella lösningar, utan ett systemperspektiv bör anammas och ansträngningar riktas mot att främja ett paradigmskifte. Hållbarhetsinnovation börjar långsamt närma sig ett mer holistiskt tillvägagångssätt, från att tidigare fokuserat på process, produkt eller organisatorisk innovation. Konceptet “Sustainability Oriented Innovation” (SOI) anammar denna helhetssyn och ser innovation som en process eller resa och beaktar hållbarhet ur både ett socialt, miljömässigt och ekonomiskt perspektiv. För att det ska uppstå systembyggande och holistiska lösningar är det uppenbart att utmaningarna måste lösas tillsammans, i nätverk av ett flertal individer samt samhällsaktörer och inte på insulära vis. Tidigare har forskare ändå fokuserat mest på vem som ska styra eller vilka som ska vara inblandade i hållbarhetsinnovation, medan det saknas en förståelse för hur det ska uppnås kollektivt. Det är därför avgörande för framtidens hållbarhetsutveckling att förstå hur olika parter, som det civila samhället, myndigheter samt industrier kan samarbeta för att skapa värdefulla lösningar.

Genom att kombinera SOI med Actor Network Theory (ANT) utforskar denna text hur aktörer

engagerar och interagerar i SOI-processer samt bildar mångfaldiga aktörnätverk. ANT hjälper

till att dechiffrera innovationsprocessen genom at beakta den som ickelinjär och kontinuerlig,

som en förhandling mellan flera aktörer snarare än en ensidig och linjär process. Två olika typer

av SOI processer undersöks genom ANTs teoretiska lins för att belysa dem genom ‘moments of

translations’ snarare än statiska faser eller steg. Eftersom integrationen av SOI och ANT nästintill

uteblivit i litteraturen är detta ett teoretiskt bidrag som berikar förståelsen för att kombinera de två

teorierna. Resultaten betonar hur den centrala aktören, i en SOI-process, engagerar och interagerar

med andra aktörer. Slutsatens belyser hur man navigerar komplexiteten i hållbarhetsprocesser och

engagerar berörda aktörer. Den beskriver därmed hur organisationer och individer i praktiken kan

initiera eller övergå till holistiska metoder och anamma systemperspektiv.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . .6

1.1 Background . . . 6

1.2 Problem Statement . . . 8

1.3 Case Studies . . . 9

1.4 Delimitations . . . 9

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW . . . .11

2.1 Innovation and Sustainability . . . 11

2.2 Sustainability Oriented Innovation (SOI) . . . .13

2.3 Value co-creation in a Multi-Actor Process . . . 16

2.4 Stakeholder Engagement . . . 18

2.5 Actor Network Theory (ANT) . . . 20

2.5.1 Innovation as process . . . 21

2.5.2 The Translation Moments . . . 21

3.0 METHODOLOGY . . . .24

3.1 Research Paradigm . . . 24

3.2 Research Design. . . 24

3.2.1 Dual case study . . . 24

3.3 Data Collection . . . 25

3.3.1 Primary Data . . . .25

3.3.2 Secondary Data . . . 26

3.4 Ethical Considerations . . . 26

3.5 Research Sustainability . . . 27

4.0 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS . . . .28

4.1 Results . . . 28

4.1.1 SOI Approach . . . 28

4.1.2 Mapping of Actor Network . . . 30

4.1.3 Moments of Translation . . . .32

5.0 DISCUSSION . . . .34

. . . .34

5.1 Main Findings . . . 34

5.2 Additional Findings . . . 37

6.0 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH . . . .39

6.1 Conclusion and Managerial Implications . . . 39

6.2 Limitations . . . 39

6.3 Future Research . . . 40

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . .42

APPENDIX . . . .48

Appendix 1: Interview Guidelines . . . 48

Appendix 2: Case Study 1 (POW) . . . 49

Appendix 3: Case Study 2 (C2) . . . 50

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who supported and contributed to this paper. The friendly advice and invaluable insights have guided us throughout this research and been vital for its completion.

Particularly we would like to thank our supervisor, Gregg Vanourek, for the undoubtful engagement and patience to support us. It is truly rare to come across someone who has such strong integrity and dedication. Gregg always went beyond and exceeded our expectations of a supervisor. His incredible guidance has not only helped us in our thesis work but will also be valuable in what follows this Master degree.

We would also like to express our gratitude towards Peniche Ocean Watch and our other dedicated partner that made our case investigations possible and successful. We have learned a lot from you all and have gathered unparallelled knowledge in the process of working with you.

Finally we would like to thank KTH Royal Institute of Technology for the opportunity to write

this thesis, providing us with great resources and support systems.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

There is a scepticism about the current economic paradigm being able to solve for sustainable challenges societies face (Adams et al., 2016; Michel and Hudon, 2015). The constant infatuation with economic growth as an economic philosophy has translated to frequent depletion of natural resources (Jackson, 2009; Michel and Hudon, 2015) There also exists systemic lock-ins that prevent actors in society from transitioning to more sustainable alternatives (Markard et al., 2012).

Innovation has been considered a tool to improve quality of life and transform society (Westley et al., 2011). In the past, however, innovation served as the principal means of creating economic value for the industries without considering overall ecosystem, for example potential negative impacts on society and environment (Westley et al., 2011). This led to optimised systems in terms of an organization’s internal efficiency rather than holistic solutions that had a wider positive impact both on an environmental and societal dimension.

As a result, we are now facing sustainability challenges across multiple domains, such as agriculture, water supply, sanitation, energy, transportation etc. These sustainability challenges are accompanied and aggravated by strong path dependencies and lock-ins (Markard et al., 2012).

Arthur (1989) explained in his paper how lock-ins lead to established technologies being selected over other alternatives, not because of their superiority or relative advantage but because they are more widely diffused and accepted (Arthur, 1989). These established technologies are highly intertwined with organisational, political and institutional structures as well as impacted by value chains, user practices and other complementary technologies, adding to the complexity of tackling overall sustainability challenges (Markard et al., 2012). As a result, the socio technical systems do not undergo the desired radical changes but only the incremental ones, which are thereby, not enough to solve for the existing sustainability challenges (Markard et al., 2012).

Businesses have been encouraged to focus on sustainability with a long- term perspective, and one of the ways in which a firm can accomplish this is by engaging in practices of sustainability innovation (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014). The research around the role of innovation in helping organisations to adopt sustainable solutions has gained increasing interest from academicians, businesses and policy makers (Adams et al., 2016). Though the concept of ‘sustainable development’ was introduced at the United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in 1972, it was the Brundtland report in 1987 that defined ‘Sustainable Development’, which in turn shifted the focus on innovation for sustainability rather than only economic development (Brundtland et al., 1987).

Adams et al. defined Sustainability-Oriented Innovation (SOI) as “intentional changes to an organization’s philosophy and values, as well as to its products, processes or practices, to serve the specific purpose of creating and realizing social and environmental value in addition to economic returns” (Adams et al., 2016, p. 181) and discussed Systems Building as the best approach towards sustainable business. The Systems Building approach requires a radical shift in the way firms approach sustainability and looks at the purpose of organisations in society:

“doing good by doing new things with others” (Adams et al., 2016, p. 192). System Builders

recognise that it is beyond the individual capacity of an actor to achieve the ultimate objectives

of sustainability (Adams et al., 2016, p. 192). Hence, this approach is characterized by a shift towards building networks and co-creating sustainable value with other actors, which requires firms to move towards integrated collaborations and to bring systems-shaping innovations rather than exist in isolation (Taylor, 2005).

Innovations that leverage collaboration between stakeholders and knowledge sharing have strong potential to achieve positive impact in terms of social and environmental sustainability (Lupova- Henry and Dotti, 2019; Paloviita and Luoma-aho, 2010). Lupova and Dotti (2019) demonstrate how it’s not viable for either market or state actors to operate insularly or impose top-down approaches when addressing sustainability challenges. It can therefore be argued that SOI needs to be open as it demands the interaction between different actors in society (Lupova-Henry and Dotti, 2019). Similarly, Chesbrough’s and Appleyard’s (2007) definition of open innovation discusses how firms should go beyond their boundaries to include external knowledge and actors in the innovation process. This concept fosters innovations that are born out of stakeholder collaborations and knowledge sharing (Schaffers and Turkama, 2012). It is a paradigm that advises organisations to leverage both internal and external ideas to grow novel solutions (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007).

In academic literature, stakeholders have been at the center of discussion around sustainable development, with emphasis on different aspects such as stakeholder pressures, stakeholder integration, managing stakeholder expectations etc. (Goodman et al., 2017a). System level approaches can be complex in nature, requiring collaborations between multiple actors and can therefore make it challenging to manage and align engagements. It therefore becomes relevant to examine and clarify stakeholder relations within these contexts. Although the research literature emphasizes boundary-spanning approaches (Klewitz, 2017) and interactions between multiple stakeholders in the innovation process, Kazadi et al. (2016) argue that researchers often analyse stakeholder engagement in a dyadic manner. It is suggested that innovation for sustainability, should be negotiated in wider partner networks (Klewitz, 2017; Lupova-Henry and Dotti, 2019) and therefore it becomes valuable to look at the engagement holistically across multiple actors.

Stakeholder theory has been adopted by researchers to simplify and understand the interactions of these multiple actors in innovation for sustainability (Freeman, 2010). However, the traditional view of stakeholder management was mostly concerned with mitigation of risks and conflicts amongst stakeholders, but scholars like Sloan (2009) have argued for a forward-looking perspective in which stakeholders are seen as active collaborators and their integration into the core business strategy should be prioritized (Sloan, 2009). Freeman defines stakeholder as

“any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives”(Freeman, 1984, p. 46). This implies that a firm’s stakeholders are not just limited to its customers, competitors, and shareholders but also include its employees, legislators, government and other groups like environmentalists and communities etc. Szekely and Strebel (2013) also confirm in their research that partnerships play a central role in innovation for sustainability and that engaging a wider variety of stakeholders with deeper partnerships is important for radical innovations.

Multiple papers have focused on identifying these stakeholders for SOI and their roles (Chesbrough,

2006; Goodman et al., 2017; Kazadi et al., 2016). Yet, Lupova and Dotti (2019) argue that the

focus should not be on who should drive innovation for sustainability but rather on investigating

how various actors can engage to develop new visions and co-create for a sustainable future whilst establishing new power relations (Lupova-Henry and Dotti, 2019). If the ‘how’ mechanisms of stakeholder engagement in SOI need to be further investigated, Actor Network Theory (ANT) presents itself as a relevant frame of reference (Aka, 2019).

ANT can be seen as a development of stakeholder theory, as it gives a broader comprehension of networks and their formation (Luoma-aho and Paloviita, 2010). It is increasingly being used to comprehend and appraise complex systems and their changes (Bilodeau and Potvin, 2018).

What is significant about the theory is that, instead of predicting outcomes, ANT helps to map the whole network and underscoring the process of engagement, dubbed “translations” (Luoma-aho and Paloviita, 2010). All in all, it helps to shift analysis and focus from who is involved to how actors with their heterogeneous nature engage at different points in time (Aka, 2019). Another important aspect of ANT is the fact that a stakeholder can be both human and non-human, meaning that artefacts such as resources used in a project could have a role in influencing the success of organisations and their projects (Luoma-aho and Paloviita, 2010).

Aka (2019) describes one perspective shaping innovation studies within organisations as the

“process view”, [..] in which humans and society are shaped by each other through the meaning that arises in interactions” (Aka, 2019, p. 3). The paper will take this standpoint and consider innovation and sustainability through a process view lens. This view can be further classified into two frames of analysis: “process of innovation” and “innovation as process” (Aka, 2019), where

“innovation as process” emphasises relational and temporal dimensions of innovation and views it as innovation as non-linear, and ongoing. The perspective also suggests that innovation only exists if all actors have jointly negotiated and developed it (Aka, 2019). This perspective becomes relevant to highlight when looking at how stakeholders engage, since “innovation as process”

(unlike the “process of innovation”) enables researchers to visualise how actors are continuously reshaping their boundaries in relation to one another.

1.2 Problem Statement

“The challenge is thus not to determine who should lead or who does it better, but to understand how different actors engage with one another to create new visions, imagine more sustainable futures as well as reconcile their interests and establish new power relations” (Lupova-Henry and Dotti, 2019, p. 745). Taking into consideration this quote and the previously stated claims that there is a lack of research on how stakeholders engage in context of SOI, it becomes relevant to focus this paper on exploring actors’ engagement in the process of SOI and shed light on how they collaborate and co-create. The paper is delimited to looking at the focal actor investigating how they engage with different actors and navigate the multi-actor network through the lense of Actor Network Theory (ANT). The focal actor, in this research, is defined as the actor/set of individuals who initiate(s) the multi-actor network, but does not necessarily have a larger/smaller stake in the network. As per Adams et al. (2016) and Aka (2019), the focal actor should initiate and mobilize other actors and also aim to inspire and lead the change.

This paper could have implications for actors wanting to embark on SOI journeys and thus help

them steer or drive the project. Ultimately we aim to answer: How does the focal actor engage

with other actors in Sustainability Oriented Innovation processes?

1.3 Case Studies

The paper explores the research question by analyzing two cases which are situated within diverse contexts of sustainability oriented innovation. One is a project started by a large corporation and the other is a newly started innovation initiative born out of a sustainability issue in a coastal community. Both the cases have commonalities as they approach sustainability issues by involving different and multiple actors for co-creating solutions.

The first case, Peniche Ocean Watch (POW), fosters and facilitates creativity and knowledge sharing in ocean-based industries. The initiative is a part of a larger project called the Ocean Tech Hub which is based in Peniche, Portugal which innovates to discover “[…] trapped value that enables a blue circular economy and global best practice in tackling ocean waste and regional rejuvenation.” POW specifically wants to map, collect, handle and recycle marine litter whilst unleashing trapped value in fishing industry. It is initiated as a response to the region’s unsustainable tourism and deteriorating marine life as result of overfishing and ocean littering. The project wants to revive the coastal communities of Peniche and contribute to both its environmental, social and economic resilience.

The project stresses the importance of inclusivity as its goal is to inspire the greater community of the region, including the fishermen, the divers, the university, the port and the shipyard. It has become a multi actor network including international as well as local actors from both industry, civil society, academia and government, referencing the quadruple helix as a guiding framework to the project (Carayannis and Campbell, 2012). The focal actor, which is the founding team in this case, co-creates and collaborates with all parties, utilising their knowledge to tackle challenges approach in the project.

Case Two (C2) is a project within a multinational company in the global spirits industry, headquartered in Sweden. Their strategic model is deeply rooted around the key pillars of efficiency, customer satisfaction and sustainable growth. The project under focus has a vision to source 100% of their coffee sustainably in next 4 years. It thus tackles sustainability by redefining the processes around sourcing and production of coffee, the key ingredient for one of their major liqueur brands. This project aims to strike a balance between business efficiency and a positive social and environmental impact. With an aim of solving for sustainability holistically, it is a great example of how the company, which is also the focal actor, identifies and partners with multiple external actors (like supply chain partners, non-governmental organisation, farmers, academicians etc), for knowledge sharing and co-creating solutions.

More details about the two cases can be found in Appendix 3 and Appendix 4.

1.4 Delimitations

The scope of this research includes studying the sustainability oriented innovation process for

two projects, which have been selected on the criterias of: intention to solve for sustainability

and involvement of multiple external partners in their process. The two projects are ongoing and,

research is thus limited to studying the engagement with actors who are currently involved in the

processes. Given the time limitation, the scope also limits itself to focus on the focal actor that

initiates and mobilizes the project, whereas it could be valuable for further research to investigate

actors joining projects later in the SOI process, to be able to track the process from another

perspective. The research also relies on the data collected through interviews and compares it with

the secondary sources from websites and internal documents, but does not include any ground level observations.

The research will focus on two cases in two rather contrasting geographical locations where one is situated in a mountain village in Mexico and the other in a coastal community in Portugal.

The focal actor of the project in Mexico has its headquarters in Sweden and the interviews will

therefore be conducted from there. The industries in which the focal actors of the two cases are

active are rather diverse too, where the case in Mexico is a project by a company active in the

spirits industry and the case in Portugal is not confined to a certain industry but is focused on

building a blue circular economy.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Innovation and Sustainability

Innovation has been defined by multiple researchers using different approaches; some relate to it as commercialization of new ideas or inventions or a practical application of new products, while others define it from a different perspective like stages of innovation or the degree of newness (Michelini, 2012). On the other hand Garud et al. (2017) does not see innovation as completed outcome such as a new product but rather looks at innovation as a process and in-the- making journey. Innovation has also been found to play a central role for creating a competitive advantage for organisations (Bessant and Tidd, 2007). However, Baregheh et al. (2009) point out that, despite the different disciplines interpreting innovation in their own way, there is a need for a more generic and integrative definition of innovation as the businesses are becoming multi- disciplinary (Baregheh et al., 2009). Hence they consider innovation as ‘‘a multi-stage process where organizations transform ideas into new or improved products, service or processes, so that they can successfully advance, compete and differentiate themselves in their marketplace”

(Baregheh et al., 2009, p. 1334).

Authors agree that innovation can occur in different contexts outside the organisations.

Organisations, however, often focused on technological innovations in the past to enhance economic value and fulfill customer needs but as a result steered development in directions contrary to sustainability (Westley et al., 2011). Sustainability challenges that arose from these habits led to the quest for sustainable development, as laid out in the Brundtland report published in 1987.

Multiple researchers and scientists pointed out the urgent need for sustainability transitions. The Brundtland report defined ‘Sustainable Development’ as ‘‘the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’’

(Brundtland et al., 1987, p. 54). This, in turn, shifted the focus on innovation for sustainability rather than only economic development.

In the context of sustainability it becomes important to understand that innovation is a continuously evolving process (Adams et al. 2016). The paper therefore takes a process view of innovation which has been discussed in literature in the past yet is under researched (Aka 2019), especially in the context of sustainability. A process view regards innovation not as a unique idea, result or outcome but as an ongoing process and will be discussed further in section 2.5.1(Garud et al., 2017; Aka 2019). Innovation definitions in the past such as the one by Baregheh et al. (2009), has focused on innovation as a tool to differentiate in the market and hence stay competitive. This paper instead suggests that innovation can expand beyond benefiting a single firm and create positive societal and environmental impact.

Sustainability has been defined in a number of ways by researchers, (Adams et al., 2016; Aka,

2019; van Kleef and Roome, 2007) one of them being, ‘‘the successful meeting of present social,

economic, and environmental needs without compromising the ability of future generations to

meet their own needs” (Gobble, 2012, p. 64). Whilst agreeing with the definition, this paper

would like to take the definition further and not only see how organisations operate without

compromising the needs of future generations but also add value and enhance future conditions.

In the past, sustainability for businesses was centred around the concepts of cost-saving, resource efficiency, hiring the best people, etc. but now it involves meeting the needs of the company’s direct stakeholders (like employees, shareholders, clients) as well as indirect stakeholders (like communities) without compromising on the needs of future generations (Dyllick and Hockerts, 2002). Many people relate sustainability to the environmental aspect: our actions as individuals and businesses which can slow down the negative effects of climate change and protect natural resources; but the concept of sustainability is wide-ranging and concerns our impact on the entire ecosystem and contribute to social good (Gobble, 2012). This includes the interests of the future generations, human rights, biodiversity, life cycle impacts etc. and imbibes principles like openness, learning, transparency, equity, accountability and local action (J. A. G. van Kleef and Roome, 2007). Radical innovation can be used to mitigate these sustainability challenges where innovations integrate economic interests with environmental and social interests (J. A. G. van Kleef and Roome, 2007). This view of innovation triggers a wider change and moves past the previous criteria that was limited to competitiveness and economic success.

A concept like the triple bottom line has become a central discussion point around sustainability and business (Gobble, 2012). As per Slaper and Hall (2011), it is an accounting framework that measures an organisation’s performance on environmental and social dimensions besides the traditional measures of profit, returns and shareholder value (Slaper and Hall, 2011). It provides businesses with a new way of thinking about conducting business for the larger good. However, some companies have the misguided notion of ‘sustainability tradeoff’, a mental model that assumes that a positive environmental and social impact will exist as a tradeoff with their business and hence reduce their competitiveness (Jay et al., 2015). They believe that being more environment-friendly leads to added costs and thus negatively impacts their financial results. This view acts as a barrier to companies pursuing sustainability by integrating it into their business.

As a result, the prevailing approaches by the companies to corporate social responsibility (CSR) are fragmented and disconnected from their businesses strategy (Porter and Kramer, 2006).

Researchers have highlighted that sustainability can be an excellent source of organisational and technological innovations and can boost both top line and bottom line returns (Nidumolu et al., 2009). Innovators can find opportunities in the areas where social good and business success overlap (Gobble, 2012).

The competitive landscape is transforming with the rising focus on sustainability, which is now considered as, ‘‘a key driver of innovation’’ (Nidumolu et al., 2009). Businesses have been encouraged to focus on sustainability with a long-term perspective, and one of the ways in which a firm can accomplish this is by engaging in practices of sustainability innovation (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014). The research around the role of innovation in helping businesses adopt sustainable solutions has been gaining increasing attention from academics, corporations and policymakers (Adams et al., 2016). This is making organisations become more aware of the benefits that sustainability has to offer, and many are trying to transform their value chains rather than approaching sustainability from the traditional viewpoint of environmental reporting and charity CSR (Loorbach and Wijsman, 2013).

Porter and Kramer (2006), suggest that , “CSR can be much more than a cost, or a charitable

deed—it can be a source of opportunity, innovation, and competitive advantage” (Porter and

Kramer, 2006).Gupta goes beyond this to question the very essence of CSR by saying; “The

classic model of corporate social responsibility will not work in the future, because one cannot first create exclusion and then hope to do something for those who are left out” (Gupta, 2010), p.138). Here, Gupta emphasises that the current economic paradigm is built on social exclusion of certain groups in society. Yet he observes that many times CSR only attempts to include these groups through for example, charitable deeds. This, however, does not necessarily create inclusion and therefore organisations should arguably think more holistically and reconsider the way in which they include society in their practices.

More recently, academics have suggested ‘new economic’ approaches that moves away from economic growth and towards for example community-level sustainable development (Michel and Hudon, 2015; Seyfang and Smith, 2007) In terms of business practice and particularly innovation, it is suggested that a paradigm shift needs to happen to tackle the current sustainability challenges (Adams et al., 2016). Lovins et al. (2006) also speaks of a need to rethink “business as usual” because even if the logic of economising on the scarcest resource still is a fundamental concept in economics, the unit of which is scarcest today has changed compared to the past. They continue by clarifying that in the past the industrial revolution responded to the shortage of labor by mechanising industry after industry, but now people are no longer the scarcest resource but nature is. This is clearly apparent in industries that depend on ecological health, such as fishing and forestry, where processes are increasingly constrained (Lovins et al., 2006). For example, apparent in one of the cases considered in this research is that the fishing industry is constrained in some coastal communities. The aquatic ecosystem is somewhat distorted in many coastal areas and fish populations have been declining due to ocean littering and overfishing, leading to strict volume regulations imposed by the EU and leaving local fishermen in rural areas out of work.

Lovins et. al also argue that capital and labour as factors of industrial production can be substituted by one another, yet for biological factors this is not the case (2006).

The question becomes what role organisations come to play as they can both be seen as participating in activities that are unsustainable whilst also potentially being able to effect positive change and contributing to a sustainable future (Adams et al., 2016). For firms to participate in a shift towards holistic sustainability development, firms need to consider themselves as part of society (Adams et al., 2016) “The configuration of value creation directly points towards the larger system of which the firm is part, both technically and socially” (Boons et al., 2013, p. 3). Firms need to go beyond their boundaries and involve local knowledge in the innovation process (van Kleef and Roome, 2007).

2.2 Sustainability Oriented Innovation (SOI)

Since sustainable development calls for an integration of social and environmental aspects into the

decisions that impact economic development, it emphasizes the need for a holistic, system-level

perspective on value creation (Brundtland et al., 1987). While the limited view on sustainability

from an environmental perspective helps in achieving eco efficiency in terms of reduced waste,

reduced energy etc., it also has a probability of leading to a ‘‘rebound effect’’ by increasing the

consumption of related products and services as they become more affordable and accessible,

thus leading to increased resource usage (Bocken et al., 2014). Hence, many companies now

collectively look at the socio-economic, technical, ecological systems in which they exist and

operate, rather than just limiting their vision to become providers of green products (Roome and

Louche, 2016). This complex, system perspective requires the understanding of dynamic links

between the different subsystems and of the boundaries of the identified ecosystem in which they can innovate (Westley et al., 2011).

Many researchers have studied this holistic view on sustainability involving both environmental and social dimensions and used multiple terms such as sustainable innovation (Wüstenhagen, 2008), sustainability-related innovation (Wagner, 2010), sustainability-driven innovation (Kiron et al., 2015). However, we consider the description by Klewitz and Hansen, in which they portray explain that innovation for sustainability involves relative improvements and hence can be considered an evolving process (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014). The term sustainability-oriented innovation (SOI) thus represents a direction towards sustainability (Klewitz and Hansen, 2014).

Such innovations go beyond just product or service innovation and are rather a combination of products and services or new business models, which in turn lead to new developments and system-level changes (Juntunen et al., 2018).

Adams et al. (2016) in the paper, Sustainability-Oriented Innovation - A Systematic Review, provide a framework for organisations to become sustainable (Adams et al., 2016). This framework helps in understanding how companies approach sustainability in different capacities. It also reveals how a systems-building approach is vital for firms to synthesize environmental and social dimensions when they innovate for sustainability. The paper defines Sustainability-Oriented Innovation (SOI) as “intentional changes to an organization’s philosophy and values, as well as to its products, processes or practices, to serve the specific purpose of creating and realizing social and environmental value in addition to economic returns” (Adams et al., 2016, p. 181) and discusses Systems Building as the best approach towards sustainable business. This framework considers a holistic view and involves changes which are made to the firm’s philosophy and overall value system, to create a positive social and environmental impact in addition to economic returns (Adams et al., 2016). Using this framework as a guideline, Adams et al. further maps activities for different SOI approaches around themes of strategy, learning process, external or internal linkages, innovation process (Adams et al., 2016).

The SOI model in Figure 1discusses three different perspectives on sustainability, ranging from

the internally oriented perspective of Operational Optimisation to Systems Building. Here, the

former approach is focussed on compliance and efficiency within the firm whereas the latter

requires a radical shift in philosophy to think beyond the firm and consider the purpose of its

business in society (Adams et al., 2016).

Figure 1. Model of SOI (Adams et al., 2016, p. 185)

The Operational Optimization approach is the simplest form of sustainability-oriented innovation which exists within the boundaries of the company. This can be achieved by identifying the innovation capabilities of the company and mobilizing them for better efficiencies. These capabilities can be enhanced by reframing the company’s internal communications with a focus on sustainability (Adams et al., 2016). Companies can look for opportunities to do things in a better way like through ‘lean, green’ investments to improve efficiency around logistics, energy, etc. (Seebode et al., 2012). Linkages in this context involve hiring external domain specific experts to navigate and implement such opportunities (Adams et al., 2016). Innovation activities of this nature can be seen as a positive step in the direction of the firm-level sustainability.

Organisational Transformation is a SOI approach which requires companies to shift their mindset and purpose from ‘doing less harm’ to ‘doing good by doing new things’ and creating wider benefits and value for society (Adams et al., 2016). Sustainability and innovation are embedded in the culture of the organisation and become a strategic norm rather than an add-on to their strategy.

This shift towards ‘doing good’ provides opportunities for companies to evolve their business

practices and go beyond an internal, operational focus on ‘lean, green’ methods for efficiency to

a more external focus on sustainability with a positive impact on immediate stakeholders (Adams

et al., 2016). This approach thus involves establishing long term collaborations or linkages with

the immediate external stakeholders, like supply chain partners, customers etc., to explore new

opportunities external (Adams et al., 2016). The social dimension of sustainability starts becoming

more prominent in this type of SOI approach. Some organisations serve new markets with novel

innovations which are sustainable and cater to a particular community which is disadvantaged in

terms of resources like infrastructure, income etc. (Prahalad, 2012). These innovation processes

can be driven by a company’s culture, ethics or by personal values of business leaders (Adams

et al., 2016). Organisations also draw inspiration for more radical innovation from sources

like community action groups, social entrepreneurs etc. (Mulgan et al., 2007). New innovation

platforms, like frugal innovations, have developed from innovation practices in the “bottom of

the pyramid,” which has its roots in business model innovation for communities with resource constraints (Prahalad, 2012).

The third approach is the Systems Builder, which demands a radical shift in philosophy, where organisations reframe their purpose in society: ’a part of society, not apart from it’ (Adams et al., 2016, p. 193). A key characteristic is that sustainability value is collaboratively created by a network of actors rather than a single firm. Hence the linkages here are characterised by integrated collaborations of diverse and multiple actors in the network (Adams et al., 2016). It is thus about deriving new, shared values from the socio-technical and ecosystem networks to make an overall positive impact (Adams et al., 2016). This approach includes innovations that are wide as they involve new technologies, communities, mindsets, policies and also a good understanding of how it impacts society in general (Draper 2013). It is also multi-faceted and characterised by parallel innovations which are connected to each other to bring the desired system change (Draper 2013).

For corporations, it shifts the focus from being efficient to being effective and the companies no longer exist in isolation, competing with others, but move past their immediate boundaries and enter into integrated collaborations with diverse actors (Adams et al., 2016). In other words, this approach can be defined as ‘‘a set of actions that shift a system - a city, a sector, an economy - onto a more sustainable path” (Draper 2013, p. 12).

Because the ultimate goal of sustainability lies beyond the capacity of an individual firm, it is important that firms collaborate with multiple actors to form systems of innovation. In these systems, actors have different perspectives on potential problems and opportunities (van Kleef and Roome, 2007). These perspectives and diverse knowledge sets can then be integrated to identify, initiate and lead the innovation for a positive impact. Such a radical shift, however, presents a great challenge for incumbent firms where the exogenous environment in this socio-technical landscape is beyond their direct control but within their sphere of influence (Adams et al., 2016).

Organisations can, however, influence systems change by participating, for example, in initiatives like The U.N. Global Compact and The Climate Group, which were started by the United Nations and some non-government organizations (NGOs) (Seebode et al., 2012). They can also work on new platforms by collaborating with different actors, for example, Nike’s open innovation platform, in which the firm has collaborated with consumers, scientists, and government to find system-level solutions to big sustainability challenges around material usage, water, energy and health (Draper 2013). This joint action for sustainability innovation requiring an active involvement of broader and diverse stakeholders should include actors with local knowledge about the implications of innovation, which aids innovation by making it contextually relevant (van Kleef and Roome, 2007). Hence, this approach involves a network of actors having different perspectives, interests and cultural contexts. The inclusiveness that the concept of Systems Builders demands and the resulting diversity in this wide actor-network may lead to challenges like a lack of clarity around the purpose, slowed progress, conflicts of interest and ideology and poor selection of actors (van Kleef and Roome, 2007).

2.3 Value co-creation in a Multi-Actor Process

As demonstrated in the previous section, SOI demands interaction between different actors

in society and cannot be developed in an insular or top-down manner. In addition to this a

contemporary view of value co-creation demonstrates that value is derived from interaction and

integration of different actors (Jaakkola and Hakanen, 2013, p.). What governs sustainability can

be defined as systems composed of formal and informal networks/interactions (Shiroyama et al., 2012). There is also a particular emphasis on the vital role of informal actors in the quest to innovate for sustainability. Innovation for sustainability is ultimately portrayed in recent literature as a process negotiated in a multi-actor network(Goodman et al., 2017a; Klewitz, 2017; Lupova- Henry and Dotti, 2019).

The creation of value from the perspective of only a “solution provider” and the ‘customer’ is limiting, providing only a slim understanding of the process (Jaakkola and Hakanen, 2013). The contemporary perspective argues that value is derived from interaction and integration of several different actors, beyond the direct customer and for instance including actors such as educational institutions and government. (Jaakkola and Hakanen, 2013). Co-creation becomes particularly relevant in innovation for sustainability. Firstly, innovation is directly linked to value creation (Lee et al., 2012). In the past innovation was often considered in closed R&D environments, but now co-creation has become central to and integrated into innovation as processes have opened up and become more collaborative (Chesbrough and Appleyard, 2007; Lee et al., 2012; Leminen et al., 2012). Secondly, sustainability is a multidimensional concept and should be negotiated in wider partner networks and between multiple stakeholders, yet many times it is tackled insularly (Goodman et al., 2017; van Kleef and Roome, 2007). It thereby becomes relevant to examine the process of co-creation in a wider context than a dyadic one.

Ultimately, the firm-centric value creation model is successively fading (Ramaswamy, 2009).

Lupova-Henry and Dotti (2019) amongst others (Goodman et al., 2017) shows that in the context of sustainability innovation a firm is not necessarily a centrepiece, but one of many possible actors involved. In other words, corporations are not always the focal actor in SOI initiatives.

And even if the open innovation (OI) concept coined by Chesbrough (2007) demonstrates that firms should surpass their boundaries to join with sources of external knowledge and skills for novel solutions, research on OI often takes the perspective of a firm as central to innovation processes (Randhawa et al., 2016). Research on stakeholders also many times focuses on a two- way relationship between the firm and another stakeholder (Kazadi et al., 2016). This calls for an understanding from a more holistic and multidimensional perspective.

When innovating for sustainability, informal actors in the form of communities are stressed to be a vital source of opportunities for sustainable development (Gernert et al., 2018; Goodman et al., 2017a; Gupta, 2010; Lupova-Henry and Dotti, 2019). “Informal actors” can be a wide term but for this paper its defintion encompases any actor that is not a legal entity, for example communities or social movements (van de Klundert and Lardinois, 1995). System building approaches for SOI typically highlight the importance of involving communities embedded in society in the process of addressing sustainability challenges (Adams et al., 2016). It is also argued that those with local knowledge need to be included in innovation for sustainability as compared to conventional forms of innovation (van Kleef and Roome, 2007). Goodman et al. (2017) add to this argument from a firm’s perspective, demonstrating that civil society organizations (ie. organisations that manifest the interest of citizens and are independent from government), public authorities and academic institutions, referred to as secondary stakeholders in their study, can be more important in SOI than primary stakeholders such as shareholders, suppliers and employees.

Innovation and community action are vital pillars for sustainable development (Seyfang and Smith,

2006). One example of innovation on the community level is grassroots innovations that derive from community agency and have unfolded as alternatives to unsustainable and mainstream ways of innovating (Martin et al., 2015) These innovation structures which are deeply embedded in the social fabric have the potential to transform the landscape by innovating in niche spaces using the available limited resources (Martin et al., 2015). Yet, even if emphasis is put on communities and civil society to solve sustainability challenges, it should be highlighted that there needs to be a bridge between local know-how and global scientific knowledge, neither of which is exclusively capable of solving the problems on their own (Lupova-Henry and Dotti, 2019). Having that said, Lupova-Henry and Dotti (2019), note that to date there is not enough literature considering civil society’s role in tackling sustainability challenges or informal actors’ engagement with innovation practices.

Following the above discussion, it becomes clear that innovation is not always an insular process by either government, corporations or civil society, but should arguably be a joint venture between different actors. However, such joint ventures are not problem-free, since with multiple actors comes diverging views, capabilities and resources, hence problems can arise when attempting to align these actors (Kazadi et al., 2016; Lupova-Henry and Dotti, 2019). This calls for clarification of how engagement between these multiple actors should unfold. Yet, there is a lack of research on understanding engagement dynamics between different actors on the quest to innovate for sustainability (Lupova-Henry and Dotti, 2019).

2.4 Stakeholder Engagement

In order to understand the engagements between different actors in the process of creating innovative solutions, researchers have used different approaches to simplify these relationships.

Stakeholder theory, which has evolved over time and has been discussed from different perspectives by numerous authors, provides a framework for understanding how relationships are managed with a wide array of actors in a complex environment (Freeman, 2010). Stakeholder theory is unique from the other theories of strategic management like shareholder theory, which focuses on only legal and implied relationships (Moore, 1999), whereas the stakeholder theory also addresses the ethical values and morals (Phillips et al., 2003). The stakeholder theory examines the ends and the means of achieving these ends in any cooperative activity (Freeman and McVea, 2001).

Stakeholder can thus be defined as “any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organization’s objectives” (Freeman, 2010, p. 46). This implies that a firm’s stakeholders are not just limited to its customers, competitors, suppliers and owners/shareholders but also include its employees, legislators, government and other groups like environmentalists and communities etc. that are impacted by the firm (Driessen and Hillebrand, 2013). This consideration of multiple stakeholders exposes the firm or multi-actor networks to a wide range of complex decisions. Stakeholder theory also proposes the concept of stakeholder integration, which is defined as the extent to which various stakeholders and their views are incorporated in a firm’s decision process (Driessen and Hillebrand, 2013). The theory acknowledges that the integration may lead to conflicts but does not elaborate on how these issues can be resolved in the specific organisational context (Driessen and Hillebrand, 2013).

Stakeholder theory offers numerous answers to how the stakeholders can be identified and

classified. Stakeholders can be grouped in multiple ways: as primary and secondary; as actors

or those acted upon; as those having a voluntary or involuntary relationship with the firm; as

resource providers or dependents on the firm; as rights holders or moral claimants and so on (Greenwood, 2007). Authors like Clarkson have emphasized the need to distinguish between the stakeholders and include research around knowledge flow from these wider secondary actors, which are “groups that influence or affect, or are influenced or affected by the corporation, but are neither engaged in transactions with the corporation nor essential for its survival” (Clarkson, 1995, p. 107). These can be non-governmental organisations (NGOs), individuals, communities, academics, or other groups that have the ability to influence the firm (Juntunen et al., 2018).

Stakeholder engagement is a concept which has been discussed and interpreted using multiple perspectives (Greenwood, 2007). Where stakeholder theory is assumed to be about the study of managing potential conflicts due to the divergent interests among various stakeholders (Frooman, 1999, p. 193), stakeholder engagement has been defined by Greenwood (2007) as “practices that the organization undertakes to involve stakeholders in a positive manner in organizational activities”

(Greenwood, 2007, p. 315). However, this definition does not talk about the extent to which stakeholders engage with a firm. Sloan (2009) defines stakeholder engagement, in general, as ‘‘the process of involving individuals and groups that either affect or are affected by the activities of the company’’ (Sloan, 2009, p. 26). It thus often focuses on the multi-actor partnerships, initiatives, platforms and processes where a few stakeholders (like NGOs, individuals and local communities) might be more distant from the strategic core of the firm (Goodman et al., 2017a).

Sloan (2009) also discusses two models for stakeholder engagement: outward-looking (control model) and inward-looking (collaborative model). The former involves controlling, managing and mitigating the risks by monitoring activities and ensuring communication; while the latter involves creating new opportunities, sharing knowledge and bringing organisational transformation through active partnerships and collaboration (Sloan, 2009). In the collaboration model, stakeholder engagement thus becomes an integral part of the firm’s core strategy rather than being an added step to manage stakeholder activities and minimize risks. This model thus has the potential for a great social performance as it opens up opportunities for innovation and organisational transformation (Sloan, 2009).

Stakeholder engagement through collaboration has the potential to create opportunities for innovation. Also, recent trends in innovation have pointed out the growing interest in exploring diverse multi-actor networks (Goodman et al., 2017). Up until now, firms have been seen to mostly innovate in closed boundaries in their Research and Development laboratories (Goodman et al., 2017) but this notion has been challenged by the new innovation methods like open innovation (Chesbrough, 2006), co-creation (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004), and co-innovation (Lee et al., 2012). These new paradigms require the firms to have a more open approach and collaborate with both the primary and secondary actors (Goodman et al., 2017). This collaboration is not just limited to the sharing of stakeholders’ suggestions for decision making (Luyet et al., 2012) but extends to more active knowledge sharing between the stakeholders to co-create new values.

Multiple authors have discussed the models for co-creation or co-innovation by multiple actor

networks, but the framework by Szekely and Strebel (2013) discusses this stakeholder engagement

for innovation in the light of creating sustainable solutions. This approach talks about building

deeper partnerships with a diverse set of stakeholder groups, developing an integrated approach

to fill the knowledge gaps and build capabilities by collaborating better (Szekely and Strebel,

2013). Such wider collaborations and systems thinking approach can lead to radical sustainable innovations that evolve over time and are capable of overcoming the environmental and social challenges (Szekely and Strebel, 2013).

Stakeholder engagement has a disadvantage that it costs resources, especially time, and also reduces the level of control the firm has, given there are multiple actors involved (Prahalad and Ramaswamy, 2004). Despite this, the potential of stakeholder engagement to develop radical sustainable innovations cannot be ignored and more firms are now exploring partnerships with wider actors like customers, communities etc. Scholars have emphasized that stakeholder engagement can provide a basis for exploration of new opportunities to solve specific societal and environmental challenges (Szekely and Strebel, 2013). Hence, it becomes important to understand these engagements and their relevance for innovation and sustainability.

2.5 Actor Network Theory (ANT)

This paper takes the stance of Steurer (2006) and criticizes stakeholder theory as oversimplifying the complex and chaotic nature of corporate environment (Steurer, 2006). Many important contributions by multiple actors are not emphasized enough in these complex networks where the actors influence or shape innovation (Paloviita and Luoma-aho, 2010). Moreover, scholars also debate whether non-human actors, like technology, innovation, cultural context etc., should be considered as important as human stakeholders (Luoma-aho and Paloviita, 2010), given they also interact and make a difference in the network (O’Connell et al., 2014). Based on this argument, Vidgen and McMaster (1996) defined stakeholders as “any human or nonhuman organization unit that can affect as well as be affected by a human or nonhuman organization unit’s policy or policies” (Vidgen and McMaster, 1996, p. 255) . However, treating the non-human influences as equal to the human stakeholders is not always possible and instead the focus should be on the potential representatives or the human actors representing these non-human influences (Paloviita and Luoma-aho, 2010b). It can be thus argued that the Actor Network Theory can help in bridging this representation gap, by providing a more holistic perspective to the complexity of SOI processes, where many contextual factors like technology, innovation etc. also interact and influence the nature of the process.

To investigate engagements within an SOI process, Actor Network Theory (ANT) thus becomes relevant to introduce. Labelled as ‘a sociology of science’, this theory was developed by Callon and Latour in the 1980s and evolved into a renowned theory highlighting a key concept dubbed translation moments (Luoma-aho and Paloviita, 2010) . The theory has an appraising function and as a conceptual framework it is used to understand complex systems such as those involved in public health interventions (Bilodeau and Potvin, 2018) or ICT implementation (Rhodes, 2009).

ANT can be used to map human together with non-human actors, such as resources, arguing that what is of importance is not the actors’ identities or classification but emphasises on the interrelations between actors and their stake in the network (Luoma-aho and Paloviita, 2010).

ANT can be seen as a useful elaboration of stakeholder theory, as it doesn’t adopt a diagnostic

stance of predicting outcomes but rather maps the network of actors by emphasizing the constant

interactions and negotiations through, the process of translation. This translation process is where

actors negotiate, convince each other and mobilise to build a network (Luoma-aho and Paloviita,

2010).

ANT is of particular interest as a framework in innovation studies. Concepts developed by Akrich, Callon and Latour, who coined the sociology theory in the 1980s, are still cited today in innovation literature. ANT becomes relevant in innovation management as it views innovation as a process, rather than a static solution, negotiated between actors, both human and non-human (Bilodeau and Potvin, 2018) . ANT also considers innovation through the lens of a ‘translation’

process and views all actors as heterogeneous in nature whilst exploring the question, “How do things, people, and ideas become connected and assembled in larger units?” (Czarniawska, 2017, p. 164).

2.5.1 Innovation as process

ANT enables researchers to take a process view of innovation, which is to date under-researched (Aka, 2019). Today, innovation can still at times be viewed as a unique idea or an outcome.

Conversely, Usher in the 50s highlighted another view of innovation in which he demonstrated that emerging ideas are just part of a “[…]longer sequence of steps, which may eventually result in valuable products and services only if they are carefully nurtured” (Garud et al., 2017, p. 453).

This is an early process view on how innovation occurs. He discarded the theory that innovation was an intuitive action of the stereotypical and heroic inventor and stressed that innovation instead is an act of insight and that some of these acts of insights lead to great inventions through a “[…]

a process of cumulative synthesis” (Garud et al., 2017, p. 452).

From the process view two strands emerge; “process of innovation” and “innovation as process”

(Aka, 2019; Garud et al., 2017). “Process of innovation” describes a process which is not necessarily continuous and ongoing but has a clear beginning, middle and an ending. Those who adopt this view favour tools such as the stage-gate model, which is more linear and where failure and success is defined without a doubt (Garud et. al, 2017).

Conversely, “innovation as process” views innovation as driven by non-linear translations between multiple actors that are never-ending and thus is a continuous and unfinished achievement (Aka, 2019). Innovation as process also relates to innovation as a sort of in-the-making journey where actors “[…]contextualise their initiative by actively reinforcing or de-coupling links and continuously redrawing their relational boundaries” (Garud et al., 2017, p. 456). ‘Innovation as process’ also considers relational and temporal perspectives of the innovation process and can only exist when it is developed, jointly, between actors involved (Aka, 2019). It shows innovation as unfolding overtime, revealing its durational mechanisms. It is also a perspective that makes way for a visualisation of how actors frame and contextualise innovation initiatives (Aka, 2019).

2.5.2 The Translation Moments

“Innovation as process” is described by ANT “[...] as a translation in which actors both human and nonhuman constantly negotiate and adjust social (use) and technical (functionality) characteristics of innovation over time” (Aka, 2019, p. 6). The translation process is divided into four different stages: Problematisation, Interessement, Enrolment and Mobilisation (Aka, 2019; Fox, 2000;

Luoma-aho and Paloviita, 2010; O’Connell et al., 2014). The translation moments are not necessarily linear or occuring after one another, instead they can be intertwining, trials and errors that go back-and-forth(Aka, 2019). Callon (1984) refers to the moments of translations as marks of “[..] progression in the negotiation” (p. 224).

Callon (1984) describes the translation process by exemplifying a multi-actor network that formed

around attempting to cultivate scallops in a rural region in France, as a result of declining scallop population caused by overfishing. The example begins as Callon describes three researchers forming an initiative to study scallops in France and investigate possible cultivation processes.

Table 1 details these translation moments with an example adopted from Callon’s (1984) research.

Although ANT comes with benefits of mapping complex systems and unfolding the how actors interact, there is also debate around several elements that this theory puts forward. There are a strand of researchers that criticise the fact that ANT does not consider the selection process of actors and there is also criticism around the ambiguity of non-human actors, which can be distorting in trying to understand stakeholder interrelations.

Returning from a trip to Japan, where three researchers spotted ways to cultivate scallops, they start exploring how the same method can be applied in France and thereby they begin to identify the problem and a solution. The problem and a proposed solution is summarised by answering questions considering the technical aspects of the cultivation process of the scallops and by determining a set of actors suitable to solve or that are affected by the problem. By doing this they make themselves indispensable to the network they are forming. The initiators reveal who they are and what they want, showing themselves as “[…]as ‘basic researchers who, impressed by the foreign achievement, seek to advance the available knowledge concerning a species which had not been thoroughly studied before.’ By undertaking this investigation, these researchers hope to render the fishermen’s life easier and increase the stock of scallops of St. Brieuc Bay” (Callon, 1984, p. 205).

Interessement is a series of process where actors are locked into the role which was set out for them in order to solve the problem. Once the actors are convinced, interessement is successful and in turn validates the problematization.

At this moment actors are about to be locked-in, becoming a part of the network. The initiator (three researchers) increase their number of meetings and discussion to explain to the fishermen the reason for the scallops becoming extinct. They demonstrate to other actors the decline of scallops population in their area whilst showing how the problem is solved in Japan.

This type of intressemnet also occurs for non-human actors such as the scallops as researchers and fishermen set up tools to protect the scallops and hinge them to the cultivation process

Enrollment occurs with a successful interessement. It includes the different types of strategies that are used to facilitate the innovation process by defining and inter-relating the different roles which were identified in previous phase.

Enrolment is achieved if intressement is successful. “To describe enrolment is thus to describe the group of multilateral negotiations, trials of strength and tricks that accompany the interessements and enable them to succeed”

(Callon, 1984, p.211) Callon describe possible ways of enrolment as being

“[…]physical violence (against the predators), seduction, transaction, and consent without discussion”(Callon, 1984, p. 214) For the actor named “the colleagues” enrolment is simply a part of a discussion where the results presented by the three researchers are accepted and where the colleagues believe in the principles about how to cultivate the scallops, and judge the proposed experiment to cultivate the scallops as convincing. It is also here where each of the actors are assigned roles such as promoters, regulators and evaluators.

Mobilisation phase occurs when the project is visible and can be represented by a spokesperson externally. Actors, both human and non-human, and their interests are represented which contributes to the stability of the network.

At the start all actors are dispersed, the fishermen, the scallops and the colleagues but at the end the three researchers can say who these actors are and what they want. At this point the three researchers can speak for the other actors. The researchers for instance sit in a conference room discussing and presenting graphs and tables concerning the project and speak for the different actors without them having to be present.

In the Problematisation moment, a set of actors lay out the problem in such a way that it is understandable for other actors, making them recognize its importance. The focal actor also has to show that they have the means or have an idea of how to solve the problem. Here it becomes important to understand and identify actors’

nature, preference and issues.

Example Description of Translation

moment

Source: developed from the works of Callon (1984), Aka (2019) and Fox (2000)

Table 1, Translation Moments Explained

ANT does not touch in depth upon which actors should be included or excluded in the network and hardly explains who the actors are in detail (O’Connell et al., 2014). The theory takes for granted that researchers are impartial when considering all possible actors. “[...]how can one be confident that all actors and all influences have been considered when analysis is necessarily restricted to known and published sources?” (O’Connell et al., 2014, p. 10). There is a lack of understanding the selection process of the different actors involved and much demands the researchers to be able to select both non-human and human actors appropriately. Besides the selection criteria, this theory is also critiqued by scholars on the grounds of understanding the expertise required to discuss the non-human actors and their interests in a meaningful way (O’Connell et al., 2014). As mentioned before, this theory talks about the need of some spokesperson, a human, to represent the interests of the non-human actors. But this raises the questions around the spokesperson’s ability (frequently the researcher), to correctly represent and interpret the interests of the non- human actor (Collins, 1992).

Despite these critiques, the theory becomes important for this research given that it assists in

exploring how the engagement between different actors unfold. ANT is therefore relevant since it

unlike stakeholder theory is not set out to identifying actors but more attempts to shed light on the

relational, temporal and durational mechanism of the innovation process.