Creating Innovation toward Shaping a Sustainable Future

Abstract

Nowadays it is generally well-accepted that for sustainability in future, innovation plays a critical
role. In this regard, individuals, industries and governments are required to perform actions
immediately and together. In the current article review, after a brief introduction of the subject,
first the notions of creativity and innovation are defined and they are compared and contrasted.
After that, the concept of innovation for sustainable future is discussed. Accordingly, importance
of innovation for difference aspects of sustainability is investigated. Later, typology of innovation
for sustainable development is introduced according the main aspects of sustainable development.
Finally, concluding remarks of the study are mentioned.

Keywords: Creativity, Innovation, Sustainable Development, Sustainable Future

INTRODUCTION

We are now living in an environment characterized by confusion, complexity, globalization, and

rapid technological change. Under these circumstances, organizational performance necessitates
improvements in organizational practices, especially in third-millennium leadership and
management (Karakas, 2007). The development and execution of policies that ensure an
organization's success and longevity in evolving and challenging environmental environments is
the most critical issue of most organizations today.

The real war of countries in the coming decades will be neither over energy nor on the markets,
but a real war on capital. It is human beings, and countries need more and more people whose
talents and capabilities are nurtured. It is found that they have the knowledge, expertise, skills and,
most importantly, the ability to think creatively. In research organizations and the industry of
maintaining competitive advantage depends on innovation (Arabi & Mousavi, 2009). Therefore,
it can be said that the majority of third millennium research organizations are research-oriented,
what organizations of the present era desperately need to be able to have a place in today's dynamic
and complex markets and gain competitive advantage for themselves, the ability to produce new
products and services and unique and competitive in today's changing markets. This is not possible
except by the innovation and creativity of managers and the impact of managers on the
development of employees' creativity that together try to grow their organization. It is obvious that
the business strategy of any organization that is the direction in this field plays an important role
in reaching the desired situation among competitors, and if it is stated that creativity and innovation
also play an effective role in improving the organization's situation and maintaining its long-term
survival and creating a competitive advantage for the organization. Accordingly, how to
institutionalize creativity and innovation and coordinate it with organizational goals to formulate
and especially implement effective competitive strategies in the organization will be an important
issue.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Creativity

From a psychological point of view, creativity is unique to creativity or creation of a return from
the word meaning of creating something from something else. In other words, creativity means
reducing or overloading a phenomenon and reshaping or combining it with other phenomena,
objects or things. Creativity is the use of mental abilities to create a new thought or concept.

Defining creativity with an organizational point of view:

Creativity relates to coming up with innovative concepts and plans to increase the amount or
efficiency of an organization's operations, such as growing output, increasing production or
services, decreasing prices, enhancing the quality of goods or services, creating new products or
services, and so on.

In summary, the definition of creativity is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Definition of Creativity

- The process of producing new ideas

- The process of discovering new concepts Creativity

- Find new ways to solve problems

Sternberg et al. (1997) have considered six factors effective in people's creativity:

1- Knowledge: Having basic knowledge in a limited field and gaining experience and expertise
over many years.

-2 Intellectual ability: the ability to present creative ideas by redefining and establishing new
connections in matters.

3- Thinking style: Creative people usually have an innovative thought style against the method
presented by the organization and senior management.

They choose.

4. Motivation: Creative people are generally motivated to implement their ideas.

5 Personality: Creative people generally have personality traits such as Egypt, resistance to
external pressures and

Internal and resistant to the temptation to conform to congregation.

6. Environment: Creative people are generally more likely to emerge within supportive
environments.

There are barriers to creativity, the most important of which are:

-1 Lack of confidence

-2 Fear of criticism and failure

-3 Tendency to conformity and homogeneity

-4 Mental decentralization and...

Innovation

Most organizations consider innovation as a competitive advantage and innovation management

is inevitable and even experts believe that innovation is the key to the survival of the organization,
while some organizations follow the discussion of innovation management internally, a number of
experts and organizations are looking at this issue as a meta-organizational approach. Innovation
management the necessity of inter-organizational interactions in this field and consequently the
formation of special organizations with the aim of laying the groundwork for interagency
interactions to identify, nurture and perfect new ideas,

Afuah (2020) believes that innovation is applying new technological tools and market knowledge
to supply new products or services to customers. Khalil (2000) also believes that innovation means
delivering new products, services or processes to the market with creation.

Current innovations or the development and commercialization of emerging technologies are

examples of new applications. Based on Edquist (1997) point of view, innovation is not even
limited to technical aspects and includes organizational aspects. Innovation is applied creativity.
In other words, innovation means realized creative thought, innovation is a presentation. Product
is a new process and service to the market, innovation is applying mental abilities for creating a
new concept or thought.

Wolfe (1994) says, innovation is the applications and practices of new and innovative thoughts
and thoughts resulting from creativity. Innovation is the conversion of creativity into action. And
from a managerial perspective: a process that starts from imagination and ends to commercially
publish of new product or service. Innovation is a process by which entrepreneurs turn the
opportunity into a marketable idea. It is with the help of this tool that entrepreneurs accelerate
change, in fact innovation is the process of implementing creativity. In other words, another
innovation is researching and operationalizing new ideas and generally transforming creativity into
objective simile. Innovation has different types:

1 - Fundamental innovation

2- Innovation in process

3- Innovation in product

4- Innovation based on

5- Innovation in services

6- Innovation in marketing

Edquist (1997) believes that all kinds of innovation are as follows:

1- Innovation in raw materials and resources.

2- Innovation in the product

3- Innovation in methods and processes.

4- Innovation in executive organizations and organizations.

5- Innovations in the markets.

The ability to innovate is the potential of a firm in carrying out innovative activities (Khalil, 2000).

The Difference between Creativity and Innovation:

Tidd (2001) says innovation is the use of new ideas resulting from creativity. He believes
innovation can represent a new product or service or a new way to do it, but creativity is the ability
of creating new ideas. It says that the distinction between creativity and innovation is that creativity
is an activity of intellectual and mental for creating an idea. While innovation is the conversion of
creativity into action. Innovation stages: 1- Need 2- Opinion or idea 3- Accepting 4-
Implementation. Creativity and innovation are so intertwined that it may be difficult to obtain an
independent definition of each, but direction. The light of mind can be defined separately and
innovation is the implementation of that thought and thinking. In fact, creativity means the
production of thought and innovation, i.e. realized creative thought. According to Tushman (1997)
as a management experts, the process of creativity is divided from thought to action in three stages:
the creation of thought, nutrition of thoughts and the use of thought.

Innovation for Sustainable Future

Today's organizations need a structure in which strict control is low, because creating
organizational creativity and innovation requires setting aside the promises and mental frameworks
that can offer multiple and new ideas, which requires the independence of the vote that the manager
can encourage. If we convert organizational structures into two categories of organic and
machines, organic structure is suitable for organizational creativity and innovation, because the
organic structure is quickly aligned with the changing environmental conditions and provides
flexibility and freedom in practice for its employees and will be a very suitable ground for
creativity and innovation.
Characteristics of Organic Organizational Structure:

1- Have parallel communication.

2- Failure to make decisions to the higher level

3- Commitment of task objectives

4- It was flat on the organizational pyramid

5- Close career and professional relationships

6- Cooperation and cooperation of personnel in this structure is very suitable.

7- Less communication has an order and responsibility aspect (Hurley & Hult, 1998).

In short, in order to have a creative and new organization, you need to:

 Creating a suitable atmosphere for individuals and supporting excellent management

 Attracted creative and innovative people in the organization
 Provide financial facilities suitable for the project
 Give people enough freedom to do their activities
 Use the results of people's creativity
 To set the right reward for creative people
 Form a core of organizational creativity. Innovative organizations actively educate and develop
their members' knowledge and they provide employees with encouragement and calm with job
security.

Carlson et al. (2002) supposed that because of the patching and size of systems, it isn`t easy to
measure the system`s overall performance, in their opinion, if the analysis level is limited to a
product, industry or some industries, it will be easier to measure them. As a result, they classified
the functions of the national innovation system into three groups of people. New knowledge,
dissemination and exploitation of new knowledge provided indicators for measurement (Carlson,
et al., 2002.).

Liu (2004), to measure and analyze the national innovation system, contrary to the approach of
Carlson and his colleagues, instead of analyzing the components separately, emphasized the
analysis of the whole system. They proposed a model for more precise and explicit focus on the
systemic perspective of systems of national innovation. In the model presented by Liu and White,
the main weaknesses of research on national innovation systems, i.e. lacking descriptive elements
at the system level, are discussed. In other words, in this model, instead of starting with the
category of actors of the national system innovation, such as research institutes or universities, and
then mentioning the significance of every actor in the national innovation system, has used a series
of general words under the titles of primary actors, secondary actors and institutions to analyze
and describe the systemic level of the national innovation system (Liu, 2004). By presenting a
model for evaluating the national innovation system, Nazirovsky and Arklos have presented a
specific classification of national innovation indicators that allow for quantitative and statistical
analysis of the national innovation system. In this model, national innovation indicators are
classified into three categories: input indicators, mediator indicators and output indicators.

In this model, the most important inputs are labor and capital, as well as the most important
mediators are: the accumulation of macro capabilities of science and technology, the size in terms
of the amount of capital or economic and human wealth, and finally the outputs, solutions,
knowledge and productivity (Jarboe & Furrow, 2008).

To measure the national innovation system, Freeman et al. (2003) presented the notion of the
national innovative capacity model by combining four different theoretical concepts, endogenous
growth theory, and theory of international competitiveness according to industrial groups, and
research on the national innovation system. In this model, the capacity of national innovation
depends on the three factors of the infrastructure of country's general innovation, the environment
existence for innovation in the industrial groups, the strength of the bonds among these two
dimensions.

National innovation has introduced international patents as the only suitable indicator for
measuring innovation (Freeman, 2003). In another study conducted regarding the innovation
measurement in the organization by Dodgson & Hinze (2000), efforts have been made to identify
indicators to measure the innovation process in the company, As a result, the successful metrics in
the innovation phase have been calculated in five dimensions: awareness, time strategy,
imagination and learning, technology fusion, globalization, R&D team, credibility, and
networking. Each of these eight measurements has its own set of measuring parameters. In order
to achieve its target, the European Union placed European innovation assessment on its agenda in
2000 in reaction to globalization and knowledge-based economic reforms, and in 2002 the first
national innovation metric was adopted across the Union's Member States. Human capital,
development of new information, transition and implementation of new knowledge, finance, and
innovation headquarters are the seven types of metrics used in European innovation assessment.
As is evident from previous studies, each has tried to measure innovation with some indicators and
so far no general and integrated model has been provided in the field of measuring innovation
management.

Analysis of different models of innovation measurement in the organization, as mentioned in the

previous sections, an organization that pursues innovation in its strategic planning as a way to
improve products, business process, compete with other competitors and ultimately make a profit,
needs to properly measure innovation. This means that indicators should be identified in
innovation and its process, and for maintaining and enhancing innovation capabilities, both in the
present and in the future, they should be properly measured in terms of strength, weakness and
percentage of impact. Therefore, senior managers of organizations use the indicators presented in
the form of models to identify and eliminate the problems and obstacles that prohibit the progress,
decision making and empowerment of the organization in order to maintain sustainable innovation.
In the previous studies regarding the measurement of innovation in the organization, different
models over the different years and according to the conditions of the internal and external
environment of the organization has been created, however, so far a model that can measure all
aspects of the organization seamlessly has not been created, and this has created a great challenge
for innovation managers in the organization. According to the mentioned cases in the current
research, we aim to investigate the strengths and weaknesses of each one by using the introduced
models that have more prominence in literature. For this purpose, with many detailed searches in
the world`s most prestigious scientific and research journals, 26 outstanding models were selected
in the innovation assessment literature. After this stage, it has been tried to analyze the models as
much as possible according to the time and stages of the evolution of innovation measurement
indicators, but since the presentation of an innovation model is not subject to specific rules and
frameworks, some of the indicators that have been introduced in older models can also be seen in
today's models. Therefore, it is not possible to rely entirely on the presentation date of the model
in the analysis of the models. The method of analyzing each model first begins with a summary of
the author, the study, a picture of the introduced model and the presented indicators, and then the
strengths and weaknesses of each model are dealt with and considering the deficiencies of the
model, an attempt to present a model that somehow solves the defects and deficiencies of the
previous model is discussed.

The first model capable of analyzing and applying the organization to measure innovation is a
research conducted by René Cordeiro in 1989 at the University of Rotherford, USA. In this
research, a general view on measuring the performance of innovation in the company using a
model in the field of innovation measurement in the organization is presented. In order to measure
the performance of innovation in the organization, managers need to understand: what indicators
should be measured, and at what level and when. For this purpose, the model presented input and
output indicators in three levels 1. Organization 2. Technical units (such as research and
development units) 3- business units (including marketing and production) and in three stages of
planning, performance control and overall performance of the organization) have been evaluated.
It has been used to estimate and predict the amount of resources and capacities needed to make the
organization innovative in the future.

Figure 2.
Innovation Measurement in an Organization

Sources of Technologic units Technologic Units

Research and development units

Technologic output

Business units
Sources of business units Marketable products
Marketing, production …

Typology of Innovation for Sustainability

Typology of innovation for sustainable development is introduced according these two main
aspects of sustainable development as a means to explain how these technologies differ based on
the primary problems they want to solve and their design. The term "innovation" according to
Schumpeter (1934) is used in the current study to describe initiatives that are new in the company
or agency that is implementing them. It's often linked to the potential to recombine current
technology and expertise to address unique fiscal, social, and environmental needs in the literature.
The degree to which a given breakthrough solves sustainability's environmental and social
problems differs. Illustrative variations with a low or high priority is used on social and
environmental issues to show how they differ and their consequences for the planet's future in a
clear and bounded way. The consequence is a typology (see Fig. 1) that divides technologies into
four categories: conventional, sustainable, social, and green.

According to the model suggested in Fig. 3, a typical breakthrough is one that places a low priority
on both social and environmental issues. This method of innovation is compatible with the
conventional benefit maximization approach, in which possible side effects of an innovation are
provided little consideration (Dyck and Silvestre, 2018a). This method of invention is linked in
the relevant economic literature to the company principle, which assumes that companies evolve
in order to increase income and financial outcomes (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001; Jensen, 1988).
Teece's (1986) popular system, for example, primarily investigated how and why imitation could
deter innovators from reaping important economic benefits from their inventions, suggesting a
single emphasis on the financial returns of innovations and economic component.

The second form of innovation, known as green innovation, focuses on environmental concerns
while avoiding social issues. Although the aim of maximizing beneficial environmental impacts is
admirable, such creativity must therefore be economically feasible. Based on Dyck and Silvestre
(2018b) “Environmental innovation”, “low-carbon innovation”, “eco”, “ecological” or “eco-
efficient in novation”, and “externality mitigating innovation” (Uyarra et al., 2016) are all words
that have been utilized interchangeably as synonyms for “green in novation”. This form of
innovation is described by studies as new goods, facilities, and processes that reduce
environmental effects dramatically (Bartlett and Trifilova, 2010); this specifically puts their main
emphasis on the environmental component of sustainability.

Silvestre, 2018; Dawson & Daniel, 2010). Social goals (Mulgan, 2006) are the most common
motors of social innovation, and these goals are intended to cause instability in current social
institutions (through shifts in their internal structural traditions, norms, and logics) in response to
negative social externalities (Nicholls & Murdock, 2012).
Figure 3.
A Typology of Innovations for long-term Sustainability.

SOCIAL INNOVATIONS SUSTAINABLE INNOVATIONS

High

-Primary focus is given to the social Social, environmental and economic

dimension and associated concerns
when developing and/or adopting this
type of Innovation;
-Environmental dimension/concerns and
economic dimension/concerns are subservient
(i.e., often compromised to maximize social
Social Emphasis
dimensions and their associated
concerns are considered in a balanced
approach when developing and/or
adopting this type of innovation;
-There is no maximization opportunities,
but satisfactory solutions that allow all

outcome). the three pillars being considered

simultaneously

TRADITIONAL INNOVATIONS GREEN INNOVATIONS

-Primary focus is given to the economic - Primary focus is given to environmental

dimension and associated concerns when dimension and associated concerns when
developing and/or adopting this type of developing and/or adopting this type of
Innovation; Innovation;
-Environmental dimension/concerns and social -Social dimension/concerns and economic
Social innovation, the thirdareform
dimension/concerns of innovation,
subservient prioritizes
(i.e., often social issues are
dimension/concerns while putting (i.e.,
subservient less often
focus
compromised
on economic to maximize problems.
and environmental economic/financial compromisedsocial
Although maximizing to maximize
results environmental
is a noble task, the
Low

outcome). outcome).
economic viabilityLow
of such developments cannot be Emphasis
Environmental overlooked. According to the literature, social
High
developments often seek to boost social wealth and add to the health of community (Morais &

Sustainable innovation, the fourth form of innovation, emphasizes both social and environmental
issues. Synonymous words for this form of innovation include "socio-ecological innovation" (e.g.,
Edgeman & Eskildsen, 2014) and "sustainability-oriented innovation" (e.g., Adams et al., 2016).
There is no effort to optimize one particular dimension in this form of innovation; rather, a suitable
approach could be found (Hall et al., 2012a), with compromises possibly in all three dimensions.
Based on Elkington (1997) this style of creativity is in accordance with the triple bottom line of
sustainability, which emphasizes the fiscal, environmental, and social foundations of sustainability
in equal measure. According to Hall and Vredenburg (2003), this form of invention is more
daunting and dangerous than other styles since it is "more nuanced (because there is usually a
broader number of stakeholders) and more uncertain (since each of the participants have
conflicting demands)."
CONCLUSION

While each of these three forms of sustainable development technologies (green, social, and
sustainable) tackles critical problems and leads to a more sustainable future, a shift in science and
practice toward a more systemic vision of practice and sustainability debate is needed. More
systematic approaches to sustainable development are needed (i.e., perspectives regarding all three
dimensions of the triple bottom line). More precisely, it is critical to shift toward approaches to
ecological innovations that concurrently solve societal, environmental, and economic issues as
well as their consequences.

Three important additions to the literature are made in this article. First, since innovation
complexity is still one of the most significant barriers to the growth, adoption, and diffusion of
sustainable development technologies, it is critical to link the innovation for sustainable
development discourse to the TCOS context (Hall et al., 2011), as it has been done in this paper.
According to the form of invention (sustainable, social, green, or traditional), each can have a
various kinds of ambiguity (or uncertainties). Though green innovations can face more difficult
technological uncertainties (the “T” of the TCOS acronym) because of the need for developing
and improving these technologies of innovative (e.g., battery, fuel cells, and carbon capture
technologies), social innovations may fail more frequently because of commercial uncertainties
(the “C” of the TCOS acronym) because financial viability is typically more deep understanding
the distinctions between the different styles of inventions, according to this contribution, can aid
scholars and managers in better observing and managing them.

Second, improved environmental efficiency necessitates significant improvements in companies,

supply chains, and societies, which can only be accomplished by education and creativity. This
paper integrates the trajectories notion of sustainability (Silvestre, 2015a) with the idea of
inventions for sustainable development debate, meaning that as the essence of the invention
evolves (sustainable, social, green, or traditional), supply chains, organizations, and societies may
need to develop in different way on their trajectories of sustainability. This is due to the fact that
different types of technologies may improve various kinds of learning, which may be more
conducive to various types of sustainable development innovation opportunities. The researcher
further contend that the idea of companies, supply chains, and societies evolving down a
sustainable course converges with the path dependency literature, in which new growth prospects
are constrained by previous choices, interactions, and technologies (Martin and Sunley, 2006).
This contribution is significant since when considering sustainable development technologies,
contextual and historical considerations must be considered.

Third, perhaps more progressive perspectives will favor populations, towns, and nations. While
ecological developments are often associated with the triple bottom line, new sustainability reports
show that if we really want to solve the urgent social and environmental issues we face, we need
to shift toward more progressive approaches to sustainability. This viewpoint is consistent with
the word Sustainable Innovation 2.0 coined by Dyck and Silvestre (2018b). The authors contend
that the social and environmental aspects should be the main subject of sustainable development
(i.e., a double bottom line), whereas the economic component should not be overlooked but should
become secondary to the other two main dimensions (Dyck and Silvestre, 2018b).

Multiple avenues for potential studies may be found as a result of these contributions. First, the
researcher urges further study on how technologies for sustainable development vary throughout
the literature in these three topics (policy, management, and technology), as well as how different
innovation styles (traditional, renewable, sustainable, and social) are distributed across these
themes. This will provide researchers and practitioners a better view of the types of technologies
that are most important, and it will aid science and practice progress in resolving the urgent issues
of sustainability that society is currently facing.

Second, the researcher urges more research on how various forms of technologies (traditional,
renewable, social, and sustainable) and their emphasis (policy, management, and technology)
influence the four TCOS innovation uncertainties (i.e., societal, organizational, commercial, and
technological). Given the type and focus of a particular sustainable development invention, this
opportunity will provide one with realistic perspectives about how to reduce or remove
uncertainties.

Third, this study provides promising study possibilities for further understanding how the kind and
emphasis of sustainable development technologies will potentially offer more insights into what
managers can anticipate in terms of optimizing their trajectory of sustainability, as well as the best
strategic practices and viewpoints that may be used in each situation.
Fourth, it is argued that more radical perspectives regarding sustainability are needed, and the
researcher urges more study into the topic. In terms of improving and empirically evaluating new
sustainability viewpoints including "double bottom line" strategy of Sustainable Innovation 2.0, it
is critical to recognize and evaluate the limits and influences behind them. The researcher hopes
that this paper can serve as a source of motivation for scholars, professionals, and policymakers
working in the field of sustainable growth. The researcher agrees that a significant and difficult
mindset shift and paradigm shift is indeed needed for us as a community to genuinely progress
toward a sustainable society.

REFERENCES

Afuah, A. (2020). Innovation management-strategies, implementation, and profits. New York:

Oxford University Press.
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: Toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Human Resource Management Review, 3, 185-201.
Arabi, M, & Mousavi, S., (2009). Strategic model of knowledge management to improve the
performance of research institutes. Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education,
15 (1), 1-26.
Bartlett, D., Trifilova, A., (2010). Green technology and eco-innovation: seven case-studies from
a Russian manufacturing context. J. Manuf. Technol. Manag. 21 (8), 910–929.
Carlsson, B., Jacobsson, S., Holmén, M., & Rickne, A. (2002). Innovation systems: analytical
and methodological issues. Research policy, 31(2), 233-245.
Dyck, B., Silvestre, B.S., (2018a). A novel NGO approach to facilitate the adoption of
sustainable innovations in low-income countries: lessons from small-scale farms in
Nicaragua. Organ. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840617747921.
Dyck, B., Silvestre, B.S., (2018b). Enhancing socio-ecological value creation through sustainable
innovation 2.0: moving away from maximizing financial value capture. J. Clean. Prod. 171,
1593–1604.
Edgeman, R., Eskildsen, J., (2014). Modeling and assessing sustainable enterprise excellence.
Bus. Strat. Environ. 23 (3), 173–187.
Elkington, J., (1997). Cannibals with Forks: the Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century. Capstone,
Oxford, UK. ISBN: 1-900961-27-X.
Edquist, C. (1997). Systems of innovation approaches–their emergence and
characteristics. Systems of innovation: Technologies, institutions and organizations, 1989,
1-35.
Freeman, C. (2003). Japan: a new national system of innovation.
Hurley, R. F., & Hult, G. T. M. (1998). Innovation, market orientation, and organizational
learning: an integration and empirical examination. The Journal of Marketing, 42-54.
Jarboe, K. P., & Furrow, R. (2008). Intangible asset monetization: The promise and the reality.
Working paper.
Karakas, F. (2007). The twenty‐first century leader: Social artist, spiritual visionary, and cultural
innovator. Global Business and Organizational Excellence, 26(3), 44-50.
Khalil, T. M. (2000). Management of technology: The key to competitiveness and wealth
creation. McGraw-Hill Science, Engineering & Mathematics.
Liu, C.-C. (2004). A Study on the Evaluation Index and Weight for Organizational Innovation.
Journal of Applied Sciences, 4(3), 444-448.
Martin, R., Sunley, P., (2006). Path dependence and regional economic evolution. J. Econ.
Geogr. 6 (4), 395–437.
Morais, D.O., Silvestre, B.S., (2018). Advancing social sustainability in supply chain
management: lessons from multiple case studies in an emerging economy. J. Clean. Prod.
199, 222–235.
Mulgan, G., (2006). A Manifesto for Social Innovation: what it Is, Why it Matters and how it
Can Be Accelerated. The Young Foundation, London, UK.
Sternberg, R. J., O'Hara, L. A., & Lubart, T. I. (1997). Creativity as investment. California
Management Review, 40(1), 8-21.
Rose, S., Shipp, S., Lal, B., & Stone, A. (2009). Frameworks for measuring innovation: Initial
approaches. Athena Alliance, Washington(s 5).
Stone, A., Rose, S., Lal, B., & Shipp, S. (2008). Measuring innovation and intangibles: A
business perspective. Institute for Defense Analysis, Science and Technology Policy
Institute, Washington, DC.
Teece, D.J., (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: implications for integration,
collaboration, licensing and public policy. Res. Pol. 15 (6), 285–305.
Uyarra, E., Shapira, P., Harding, A., (2016). Low carbon innovation and enterprise growth in the
UK: challenges of a place-blind policy mix. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 103, 264–272.
Tidd, J. (2001). Innovation management in context: environment, organization and performance.
International Journal of Management Reviews, 3(3), 169-183.
Tushman, M. L. (1997). Winning through innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 25(4), 14-19.
Wolfe, R. A. (1994). Organizational innovation: Review, critique and suggested research
directions. Journal of management studies, 31(3), 405-431.