DOI: 10.1002/csr.

1783

SPECIAL ISSUE ARTICLE

Understanding sustainable innovation: A systematic literature

review

Valentina Cillo1 | Antonio Messeni Petruzzelli2 | Lorenzo Ardito3 | Manlio Del Giudice1

1
Faculty of International Business
Administration, University of Rome “Link Abstract
Campus”, Rome, Italy In order to adhere to the concept of sustainable development, firms are increasingly
2
Department of Mechanics, Mathematics and
expected to develop innovations that reconcile economic, environmental, and social
Management, Polytechnic of Bari, Bari, Italy
3
Departmental Faculty of Engineering,
goals (i.e., sustainable innovations). However, achieving this goal is not straightfor-
Università Campus Bio‐Medico di Roma, ward, and although several studies have attempted to improve our understanding
Rome, Italy
of sustainable innovation, a systematization of extant findings is lacking. Therefore,
Correspondence this paper conducts a literature review with the objective of organizing previous
Valentina Cillo, Faculty of International
Business Administration, University of Rome
research regarding sustainable innovation. A systematic approach is adopted, identi-
“Link Campus,” Via del Casale San Pio V, 44, fying 69 relevant articles. These articles are organized according to three key per-
Rome 00165, Italy.
Email: v.cillo@unilink.it
spectives: internal managerial, external relational, and performance evaluation. The
results demonstrate that the first perspective, incorporating diverse managerial
aspects, is the most considered, whereas the second and third perspectives remain
underdeveloped. The paper concludes with suggestions for future research.

K E Y W OR D S

sustainable development, sustainable innovation, systematic literature review

1 | I N T RO D U CT I O N provide environmental benefits and produce social well‐being

The scientific debate regarding “sustainability”—intertwining eco-
nomic, environmental, and social goals—has grown in the last 15 years.
Accordingly, the managerial practice is increasingly expected to grow
on the sustainability concept and considers structural and macroscopic
issues that are not merely economic, such as human rights, liberaliza-
tion models, and reduction of the environmental burden (Pastré &
Vigier, 2003). This has been reinforced by developments in customer
demands and a firm's stakeholders requirements, which apply growing
pressure on businesses to implement sustainable initiatives and to
measure, monitor, and report sustainability performances. Indeed, cus-
tomers and stakeholders are increasingly demonstrating interest in
sustainable brands, with a product's ethical and sustainable certifica-
tion today constituting a key element that consumers consider when
making purchasing decisions.
In line with this reasoning, several studies have focused on sustain-
able innovation. According to this perspective, innovation should not
only guarantee a competitive advantage for companies but also
(Carayannis, Grigoroudis, Del Giudice, Della Peruta, & Sindakis,
2017; Garcia & Calantone, 2002; Sharkie, 2003). As a result, several
studies have analyzed the relationship between business strategy
and sustainability, stating that when profit‐oriented initiatives are
based on sustainable business models, firms can improve their com-
petitive advantage (Porter & Kramer, 2007).
Given the growing importance of sustainability in innovation activ-
ities, researchers and practitioners are placing significant emphasis on
understanding how sustainability issues and innovation practices can
be reconciled (e.g., Bates, Kundzewicz, Wu, & Palutikof, 2008). This
has resulted in a number of studies addressing this topic. In line with
the general model of innovation, several authors have recognized that
the effectiveness of sustainable innovation can be ascribed to internal
factors, often related to the management of the development, com-
mercialization, and dissemination phases of new products and services
(Chen, Chang, & Lin, 2014; Kemp, Schot, & Hoogma, 1998). Other
studies, instead, have underlined the pivotal role of external factors,
especially highlighting the relational aspects involving sustainable

Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;1–14. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/csr © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment 1
2 CILLO
innovation (Foxon & Pearson, 2008; Seuring & Gold, 2013). Related to
these themes, the issue of measuring sustainable innovation perfor-
mance outcomes has emerged (e.g., Rauter, Globocnik, Perl‐Vorbach,
& Baumgartner, 2018).
However, given the heterogeneity of topics, perspectives (strate-
gic management, relational view, stakeholder engagement, etc.),
and factors associated to and affecting sustainable innovation, a
systematization of extant findings is required to improve our knowl-
edge regarding how firms can improve financial performance while
developing a sustainable society (Campos‐Climent & Sanchis‐Palacio,
2017; Carayannis et al., 2017; Del Del Giudice & Straub, 2011;
Malone & Yohe, 2002; Porter & Kramer, 2007). Therefore, the main
aim of this study is to systematically identify and critically review
the literature on sustainable innovation in order to synthesize and
classify recurrent challenges and prevalent practices and thereby
reconcile economic, environmental, and social goals in innovation
activities. Ultimately, the study aims to identify promising paths for
future research.
To this end, we conduct a systematic literature review (Tranfield,
Denyer, & Smart, 2003), yielding 69 relevant papers, which we analyze
according to three main perspectives: internal managerial, external
relational, and performance evaluation.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Section 2
describes the theoretical background, with particular attention to
define the framework used to systematize the selected articles.
Section 3 describes the methodology adopted in the paper (i.e., the
systematic literature review) and descriptive statistics of the sample
articles identified as relevant according to the systematic literature
review approach. Section 5 systematizes and analyzes the main find-
ings of the sample articles. Finally, Section 6 presents a discussion
and directions for future research.
2 | A TH E O R E T I C A L F R A M E W O R K T O
S Y S T E M A T I Z E TH E L I T E R A T U R E
Sustainable innovation is generally defined as “the development of
new products, processes, services and technologies that contribute
to the development and well‐being of human needs and institutions
while respecting natural resources and regeneration capacities” (Tello
& Yoon, 2008, p. 165). Likewise, Bos‐Brouwers (2010, p. 422) explains
sustainable innovation by defining it as “innovations in which the
renewal or improvement of products, services, technological or organi-
zational processes not only delivers an improved economic perfor-
mance, but also an enhanced environmental and social performance,
both in the short and long term have the capacity to generate positive
social and environmental impacts”. In analyzing the managerial chal-
lenges related to sustainable innovation, Boons and Lüdeke‐Freund
(2013) point out that “sustainability considerations (environmental,
social, and financial)” should be “integrated into company systems
from idea generation through to research and development (R&D)
and commercialization” (p. 12). This means that a sustainable approach
to innovation should guide all business choices regarding products and
ET AL.
services, as well as the new business and organizational models that
need to be adopted (Boons & Lüdeke‐Freund, 2013).
Specifically, extant literature has argued that sustainable innova-
tion can be studied on the basis of three major perspectives: internal
managerial, external relational, and performance evaluation. At the
managerial level, previous literature has empirically investigated the
relationship between innovation and sustainability. As several authors
have stated, a direct relationship between sustainability and innova-
tion exists (McWilliams & Siegel, 2001). Although many researchers
have noted a positive association between sustainability, innovation,
and financial performance (Russo & Fouts, 1997; Soloman & Hansen,
1985; Surroca, Tribo, & Waddock, 2010), others have identified a neg-
ative association (Walley & Whitehead, 1994) or no relationship (Teoh,
Welch, & Wazzan, 1999). This situation has stimulated McWilliams
and Siegel (2001) to highlight the general lack of theoretical and
empirical studies on the measures of profitability. Among the factors
that may influence the relationship between sustainability and firm
performance, research has identified intangible resources (Surroca
et al., 2010). Innovation is moving from a focus on R&D towards an
integrated process that requires the involvement of numerous units
both within a company and between companies. This is the reason
why contemporary innovation is increasingly based on companies'
abilities to respond to the needs of their customers, analyzing in detail
the role of lead users and seeking to anticipate future developments
(Christensen & Raynor, 2003; Pettersen, Boks, & Tukker, 2013).
According to dynamic capabilities and resource‐based view theories,
business capabilities may mediate the relationship between sustain-
ability and financial return, enabling companies to develop managerial
strategies (Barney, 1991; Teece, 1998; Wernerfelt, 1995). In line with
this perspective, several authors have analyzed how knowledge man-
agement capabilities can help companies to respond to ongoing
changes in the business environment and to improve their competitive
advantage (Adams & Lamont, 2003; Del Giudice, Della Peruta, &
Carayannis, 2010; Del Giudice, Carayannis, & Maggioni, 2016; Vrontis,
Bresciani, & Giacosa, 2016).
Regarding the external‐relational perspective, some studies have
emphasized that company's ability to innovate is strongly influenced
by its relational capital and the intangible value present in the relations
(Thomson & Heron, 2006). Relational capital, in turn, can be strength-
ened by the social and environmental strategy (Sharma & Vredenburg,
1998). The starting point of these studies is that today innovation is
highly dependent on the interplay between the external and internal
environment (Rauter et al., 2018). Accordingly, research focused on
the external‐relational perspective concurs with the assumption that
a company that solely focuses on the “value addition” cannot survive
in the market in the long term. Indeed, as several empirical investiga-
tions in the leading managerial literature have illustrated (Forstater
et al., 2010), market stakeholders no longer perceive that profit
making is necessary to being legitimized. Likewise, stakeholders are
demonstrating growing interest in sustainable performance. This
means that a product/service certified as being ethical and socially
responsible and made from a sustainable chain might become more
attractive in the market. Thus, companies must consider stakeholders'
CILLO ET AL.
expectations and decisions. A growing number of scholars have stud-
ied the involvement of stakeholders and their role in the strategic
management of organizations. In accordance with stakeholder theory,
interactions with market and nonmarket players affect a company's
performance (Freeman, 1984). Indeed, as Werther and Chandler
(2011) have indicated, stakeholder engagement influences the eco-
nomic and social value of a firm in the medium and long term.
With regard to performance evaluation, several authors have
highlighted how the key research challenge is to develop a better
understanding of how innovation can bring profit to a company as well
as positively affect society (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, & Ganapathi,
2007; Castelo Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; McWilliams & Siegel,
2001; Porter & Kramer, 2007). Strategic management research is
increasingly exploring the role of sustainability and innovation in firms'
long‐term competitive advantage (Flammer, 2013; Waddock &
Graves, 1998). Certainly, companies that undertake innovation, sus-
tainability innovation, and nonfinancial disclosure are appreciated by
the market and in turn increase in value. Yet there have been few
studies on the relationship between sustainable innovation and per-
formance. Authors have attributed the inconclusiveness of empirical
studies to the limitations of existing innovation and performance mea-
sures. This has led several scholars to focus on social, organizational,
and financial measures to monitor and maintain the effectiveness of
sustainable innovation and hence achieve long‐term competitive
advantage (e.g., Kessler & Chakrabarti, 1996). This issue is exacerbated
by the fact that such performance measures may relate not only to the
innovating firms but also to partners and the society. Indeed, sustain-
able innovation can concurrently affect firm, stakeholder, and societal
implications that need to be measured.
3 | METHODOLOGY
Following Tranfield et al. (2003), we adopt the systematic literature
review as our research method. Due to uncertainty about determi-
nants, perspectives, and implications of sustainable innovation, sys-
tematic literature review may provide a well‐defined process to
identify, evaluate, and interpret all available evidence.
Having run a pilot study, we limited the search strings to the follow-
ing: [“Sustainable innovation*”], [“Innovation” and “triple bottom line”],
[“innovation” and “hybrid organization*”], [“innovation” and “benefit
organization*”], [“innovation” and “hybrid corporation*”], [“innovation”
and “benefit corporation*”], and [“sustainable innovation”], with the
use of an asterisk enabling us to select relevant documents.
Following previous studies, potentially relevant papers were
selected from the database Web of Science (e.g., Di Stefano, Peteraf,
& Verona, 2010; Tan, Zhan, Ji, Ye, & Chang, 2015), searching for
articles published from 1990 to 2018, given that innovation related
to sustainability represents a fairly new topic of research. Specifically,
we limited the search strategy to articles indexed in the Social
Sciences Citation Index as a scientific field, which includes
management‐related areas and enables us to retrieve high‐quality
publications.
3
We decided to exclude conference papers, papers not written in
English, previous literature reviews, and special issue editorials. The
other criteria used to include/exclude papers were as follows:
• Different perspectives to sustainable and innovation management
were included, for example, firm‐based and managerial perspec-
tives (internal), relational/stakeholder perspective towards
sustainable innovations (external), and performance evaluation of
sustainable innovation.
• Studies reporting empirical research using methods such as
econometric techniques, case studies, surveys, experiments, and
ethnographic studies were included.
• Studies based on the environmental impacts of sustainability were
included only if they reported findings that were expected to
contribute to our research questions. If the studies were only from
the environmental perspective (excluding the social aspect), they
were excluded.
• All duplicate studies from different sources were detected and
removed.
Our initial search on Web of Science returned 575 results. We first
filtered the papers by reading the abstract, key words, and title. Papers
for which the reading of such field did not lead to a conclusive deci-
sion, the full text was content analyzed. As indicated above, to repre-
sent the diversity of subjects covered, we included papers embracing
several perspectives and methodologies and excluded those that failed
to meet our criteria. Ultimately, 69 papers were selected by reading
the full text of the papers as coherent studies for this review. We
recorded the reasons why we included or excluded each paper,
enabling us to further discuss and assess whether a particular paper
should be included. Figure 1 schematizes the steps of the search pro-
cess and the number of selected studies in each step.
To synthesize the extracted data, following our theoretical frame-
work (see Section 2), the selected articles were organized according
to three main perspectives, namely, internal managerial, external rela-
tional, and performance evaluation. In order to provide descriptive
results, our study first analyzes data items through quantitative tech-
niques, before conducting qualitative content analysis.
3.1 | Descriptive statistics
In terms of chronology, the descriptive analysis suggests that sustain-
able innovation is a very recent and fragmented topic. Figure 2 repre-
sents the number of selected studies published per year within the
review period from 1990 to the present. The descriptive analysis sug-
gests that 40 studies (62.5%) were published during the last 7 years,
demonstrating the most relevant growing trend in the last few years.
This means that the relationship between innovation and social, eco-
nomic, and environmental goals is increasingly receiving interest and
attention from researchers. In recognizing the multidimensional nature
of sustainable innovation, we identify and classify the studies'
perspectives.
4 CILLO
FIGURE 1 Step of search process and number of selected studies in each step
FIGURE 2 Number of selected studies published per year
All in all, despite the emergence of the performance evaluation per-
spective, the internal‐managerial (50%) and external‐relational (40.6%)
perspectives cover almost all of the selected studies (see Figure 3).
Moreover, as Figure 4 highlights, analysis of the journals in which
the sample articles were published indicates how widespread this
topic is in the business and management literature. Of the journals
covered, the most representative are the Journal of Cleaner Production
(14 articles published), Sustainability (6), Strategic Management Journal
(6), and Technological Forecasting and Social Change (6).
4 | LITERATURE FINDINGS
This section reports the results from the data analysis according to the
internal‐managerial, external‐relational, and performance evaluation
dimensions. We employed the thematic analysis method to analyze
the data items. Given that some studies consider factors pertaining
ET AL.
to diverse perspectives simultaneously, we assign certain articles to
more than one perspective.
4.1 | Internal‐managerial perspective
Companies are paying increased attention to the social and environ-
mental impacts of their activities, as well as to the managerial chal-
lenges of sustainable innovation (e.g., Geels, Hekkert, & Jacobsson,
2008; Smith, Kern, Raven, & Verhees, 2014; Unruh et al., 2016). In
order to address these challenges, scholars have analyzed the role of
strategies and practices in managing social, environmental, and eco-
nomic elements of businesses to innovate. For instance, Dibrell, Craig,
Kim, and Johnson (2015) reveal that organizational social conscious-
ness moderates the relationship between the natural environmental
competency and innovativeness of firms. Instead, Longoni and
Cagliano (2018) provide evidence that a firm's degree of sustainable
innovativeness is dependent upon longer planning horizon, higher
CILLO ET AL.
FIGURE 3 Share of articles per theoretical
perspective of analysis covered
FIGURE 4 Number of articles per journal
tolerance of uncertainty, and greater ability to learn from the past
since they allow managing the trade‐off between economic, environ-
mental, and social dimensions. Another focal element emerging from
the scientific debate is the role of business models to gain a competi-
tive advantage (e.g., Adams & Lamont, 2003; Bocken, Short, Rana, &
Evans, 2014; Boons & Lüdeke‐Freund, 2013; Boons, Quist, Montalvo,
& Wagner, 2013; Sharkie, 2003). The debate about sustainable
innovation also includes new forms of management systems. This
may additionally comprise environmental management systems
(Poksinska, Dahlgaard, Jörgen, & Eklund, 2003) and holistic sustain-
ability management system standards and guidelines (Knott, 2003;
Maas & Reniers, 2013).
5
Moreover, several studies have explored the structures, resources,
capabilities, and processes that can support environmental and social
aims in innovation management (e.g., Branco & Rodrigues, 2006; Chen
et al., 2014; Du, Pan, & Zuo, 2013; Farla, Markard, Raven, & Coenen,
2012; Wernerfelt, 1995). In the following, we provide a subclassifica-
tion of the internal‐managerial perspective to better organize the liter-
ature findings.
4.1.1 | Radical/incremental innovations
Recent scientific literature has analyzed sustainability practices focus-
ing on the sustainability of product innovations (Hallstedt, Bertoni, &
6 CILLO
Isaksson, 2015). In this vein, several authors have highlighted how
companies can develop sustainable innovation through either incre-
mental or radical and disruptive changes (Carrillo‐Hermosilla, del Río,
& Könnölä, 2010; Hall & Vredenburg, 2003; Inigo, Albareda, & Paavo,
2017). The former involve regular and continuous changes, thereby
preserving current production systems and continuously improving
capabilities. In contrast, the latter refer to discontinuous changes that
replace existing components and require new capabilities. Because the
innovation required for sustainable development often needs to dra-
matically change processes and products, several authors have argued
that incremental innovation is not sufficient to achieve sustainability
goals (Carrillo‐Hermosilla, 2010; Hall & Vredenburg, 2003; Wagner,
2010). The innovation required for sustainable development often
needs to move beyond incremental adjustments creating new markets
and values. Hence, disruptive innovation will be necessary (Nasiri,
Tura, & Ojanen, 2017).
4.1.2 |Strategic niche management for the early
market introduction of radical sustainable innovations
With particular focus on the early market introduction of radical sus-
tainable innovations, several scholars have identified reasons for suc-
cess and failure. Kemp et al. (1998) argue that many sustainable
technologies fail due to technological, cultural and psychological,
demand and production factors, which may negatively affect innova-
tion performance, customer satisfaction, and thus business competi-
tiveness. Strategic niche management (SNM) scholars claim that
these factors exist because new technologies compete with well‐
established technologies, which are ingrained in existing
sociotechnical regimes. These represent the “rules” (such as cogni-
tions, beliefs, organizational structures, and scientific methods) that
guide technological development within and between firms (Kemp
et al., 1998; Meelen & Farla, 2013; Nill & Kemp, 2009). Regarding cul-
tural and psychological as well as demand factors, it has been shown
that sustainable innovations are sometimes neglected due to reasons
beyond technical or functional aspects (Kivimaa & Kern, 2016).
Indeed, consumers may perceive that such innovations are too distant
from their current values or are unwilling to pay a premium for solu-
tions whose performance is similar to unsustainable alternatives
(Aaker & Keller, 1993).
From here, several authors have analyzed the management strate-
gies and tools that effectively enable firms to manage sustainable
innovation. As a result, the concept of SNM emerged by the end of
the 1990s (Kemp et al., 1998). The concept has been presented as a
research model and policy tool to manage technological innovation
within so‐called niches. It is also intended as a technology manage-
ment strategy that contributes to the development of niches through
organizing projects. In particular, it seeks to organize projects with
potentially radical and sustainable technologies in their early develop-
ment phases.
According to Mourik and Raven (2006), SNM may support the
societal introduction of radical sustainable innovations. Certainly,
according to this approach, sustainable innovation can be accelerated
ET AL.
by the creation of technological niches through which companies can
experience the coevolution of technology in line with social and envi-
ronmental objectives. For these reasons, SNM is also deemed an
important element of policies to facilitate sustainable development
(Hoogma, Kemp, Schot, & Truffer, 2002; Nill & Kemp, 2009).
SNM additionally refers to the process of deliberately managing
niche formation processes through real‐life experiments. The core idea
is that through experiments with new technologies, alternative
sociotechnical arrangement processes of coevolution can be stimulated
(Hoogma, 2002; Pel, 2014). Technologies such as electric vehicles and
smart cars, as well as the contexts (user preferences, networks, regula-
tions, complementary technologies and expectations) in which they
develop, are worked upon simultaneously. In other words, SNM aims
to align technical and social levels (Seyfang & Longhurst, 2016). Conse-
quently, new and more sustainable patterns may emerge, partly embod-
ied in hardware (new technologies) and new practices based on new
experiences and ideas (Schot & Geels, 2008).
4.1.3 | Information systems in sustainable business
processes and practices
Few studies examined sustainable practices in business environments
and the role played by information systems (IS) in their development.
Watson, Boudreau, and Chen (2010), for example, argue that IS can
contribute to sustainable business processes by reducing logistics
costs, facilitating virtual collaboration between distributed teams,
improving cooperative knowledge management, and facilitating orga-
nizational processes. Despite the relevance of IS, the subject lacks fun-
damental evidence regarding the factors that support sustainable
innovation practices (e.g., Stahl, Eden, Jirotka, & Coeckelbergh, 2014).
4.1.4 | Ambidextrous capabilities
Ambidexterity is the ability of a firm to simultaneously explore and
exploit new knowledge, thereby enabling a firm to adapt over time.
In sustainable and innovative firms, structural ambidextrous capability
may reduce firm conflicts to improve efficiency (Andriopoulos &
Lewis, 2009). Contextual ambidextrous capability may reduce integra-
tion costs (Gibson & Birkinshaw, 2004; Güttel, Konlechner, & Trede,
2015), while coordinated ambidextrous capability is beneficial in
balancing differing business strategies and in reducing conflicts (Chen
et al., 2014; Du et al., 2013; Martinez‐Conesa, Soto‐Acosta, &
Carayannis, 2017; Soto‐Acosta, Popa, & Martinez‐Conesa, 2018).
Given that sustainable innovation implies “a collective commitment
of care for the future through responsible stewardship of science
and innovation in the present” (Owen et al., 2013, p. 30) to achieve
sustainable innovations, companies must effectively balance corporate
objectives with environmental and social expectations (Zeng, Hu, &
Ouyang, 2017). The challenge is how to recreate new managerial
and organizational capabilities to innovate for sustainability. These
abilities, known as dynamic capabilities for innovation, help companies
recognize and develop critical resources and competences (Dangelico,
Pontrandolfo, & Pujari, 2013; Lopes, Scavarda, Hofmeister, Tavares
CILLO ET AL.
Thomé, & Roehe Vaccaro, 2017; Sharma & Vredenburg, 1998; Teece,
Pisano, & Shuen, 1997). For example, according to Iles and Martin
(2013), dynamic capabilities enable companies to bring new technolo-
gies and products for sustainability to the market. Thus, an important
research area for focal firms is the development of ambidextrous and
dynamic capabilities.
4.1.5 | Business model for sustainable innovation
and competitiveness
The role of business model innovation in promoting sustainability has
received great attention in the scientific literature of the last 10 years,
mainly due to the growing customer expectations, and the pressures
of nonprofit organizations and institutions (Evans et al., 2017).
Because sustainable development requires radical and systemic inno-
vations (Boons & Lüdeke‐Freund, 2013; Boons et al., 2013), innova-
tions can be implemented more effectively when based on the
reformulation of business models (Bolton & Hannon, 2016). In this
perspective, companies can better evaluate and manage ecological,
economic, and social value. Furthermore, the concept of a business
model allows a clear analysis of the relationship between the individ-
ual company and the larger competitive and transactional environment
in which it operates.
4.2 | External‐relational perspective
According to Dodgson, Gann, and Phillips (2014), sustainable innova-
tion management is deeply related to the way in which a firm manages
its external relationships. Furthermore, these authors contend that
analysis of sustainable innovation management must view firms as
embedded in a network of relationships related to regulatory and social
governance, as well as value chains and sociotechnical regimes. They
also argue that sustainable innovation is linked to corporate strategy
and that sustainable innovation systems should be seen as a coevolu-
tionary process involving not only innovative firms but also a broader
context of institutions, infrastructures, and consumer practices.
A key element especially emerging from these considerations is the
inclusion of external stakeholders' expectations (Alkemade & Suurs,
2012; Seuring & Gold, 2013) as a prerequisite to understanding envi-
ronmental and social actions for innovations (Rocha, Soares, & Medei-
ros, 2011). For example, by including internal stakeholder
expectations, companies can improve workplace health and safety,
employee motivation, and sustainability‐oriented organizational prac-
tices (Hutchins & Sutherland, 2008).
With this in mind, a key question pertaining to sustainable innova-
tion management within business firms is: Given the new governance
context of innovation, how should firms collaborate and engage with
stakeholders (internally and externally) in innovation management
and seek to influence the context for innovation (discourses, policies,
and behaviors)? To address this challenge of sustainable innovation,
scholars have primarily focused on collaboration activities and stake-
holder engagement.
7
4.2.1 | Collaboration within sustainable innovation
ecosystems
In order to facilitate a transition towards sustainable innovation, busi-
nesses are required to engage with the complexity and systemic inter-
actions of innovation systems (Foxon & Pearson, 2008; Malone &
Yohe, 2002; van Geenhuizen & Ye, 2014). According to the sustain-
ability systems thinking framework (Williams, Philipp, Kennedy, &
Whiteman, 2017), sustainable innovation is difficult to achieve within
a single organization and thus requires collaboration with other rele-
vant organizations in order to continually create valuable products
and services for customers (Anttonen, Halme, Houtbeckers, & Nurkka,
2013; Cappa, Del Sette, Hayes, & Rosso, 2016; Desouza et al., 2008).
Sustainable enterprises are intrinsically open organizations, necessarily
engaged in innovation processes (Spender, Corvello, & Rippa, 2017).
Moreover, sustainable innovation is not a linear or mechanical process
but an ecosystem formed by continuous interactions between the
economy, society, and other aspects (Hsieh, Lin, Lu, & Rong, 2017;
Vollenbroek, 2002). In fact, most firms today adopt an open approach
to innovation because it can identify future customer needs and dis-
ruptions through foresight networks (Floricel, Dougherty, Miller, &
Ibanescu, 2008). Therefore, sustainable innovation is an ecosystem
in which company internal divisions cooperate with external organiza-
tions, particularly with suppliers, and institutions (Foxon & Pearson,
2008). Such an environment may be seen as an ecosystem in which
collaboration assumes a strategic role (Smorodinskaya, Russell, &
Katukov, 2017).
The production of innovations and the related development pro-
cesses are more and more nonlinear and network based. In this vein,
the concept of innovation systems emerged (Malerba, 2004). This
approach encourages collaboration, connectivity, and comparison
between various perspectives and disciplines. An example is repre-
sented by the reliance on socially responsible suppliers, which are
deemed to foster sustainable innovation (Wu, 2017). For this reason,
sustainable innovation ecosystems encourage productivity and organi-
zational efficiency (Smorodinskaya et al., 2017).
4.2.2 | Stakeholder engagement
Sustainable innovation refers to innovation towards more sustainable
technologies and processes in which processes are systematic,
dynamic, nonlinear, and involve significant uncertainties (Foxon &
Pearson, 2008). It owes to the involvement of several stakeholders
with heterogeneous preferences, as well as competition that compli-
cates engagement in sustainable innovation processes (Alkemade &
Suurs, 2012).
Therefore, one critical aspect in the scientific literature on sustain-
ability is the inclusion of stakeholders and the integration of their
expectations (Seuring & Gold, 2013). This process could enhance com-
panies to understand their environmental and social impacts (Rocha
et al., 2011). The involvement of internal and, in particular, external
stakeholders could improve the orientation towards sustainable inno-
vation and enable the creation of innovative and sustainable ideas. As
8 CILLO
Ayuso, Ángel Rodríguez, García‐Castro, and Ángel Ariño (2011) under-
line, the effectiveness of this innovative process depends on the abil-
ity of the company to internally manage external knowledge
integrating the business functions of stakeholder engagement and
innovation. Besides knowledge acquisition opportunities, relations
with stakeholders increase trust and social capital, thereby reducing
transaction costs (Del Giudice et al., 2017; Greenwood, 2007; Green-
wood, Díaz, Li, & Lorente, 2010; Smyth, Magnus, & Ganskau, 2010). In
this respect, a firm's ability to manage relationships with stakeholders
for value creation (known as stakeholder‐related capabilities) gains
greater relevance in the stakeholder theory debate (Ferrero‐Ferrero,
Fernández‐Izquierdo, Muñoz‐Torres, & Bellés‐Colomer, 2018;
Freeman, 1984; Jones & Wicks, 1999; Walsh, 2005). Stakeholder
engagement might allow organizations to acquire information from
their stakeholders (Sharma & Henriques, 2005), supporting the devel-
opment of individual and organizational knowledge (Katsoulakos &
Katsoulacos, 2007; Nelson & Zadek, 2000; Riahi‐Belkaoui, 2003).
Firms can in turn use this knowledge to improve their operations
and profitability.
4.3 | Performance evaluation perspective
The key issue here is: How is sustainability becoming integrated across
the identity, activities, and performance of a business?
Sustainable innovation is commonly defined as one that leads to
“socially desirable outcomes” (Stahl et al., 2014; Voegtlin & Scherer,
2017). Economic‐ and sustainability‐related outcomes represent sepa-
rate performance dimensions of a firm's innovation activities. Prior
research investigating the relationship between economic and sustain-
able performance is inconclusive. More specifically, some authors have
highlighted the existence of a neutral or positive relationship between
social and economic performances (Vanclay, 2004). However, others
claim that in order to achieve sustainability objectives, companies
must accept lower profits and margins (DiVito & Bohnsack, 2017;
Kuckertz & Wagner, 2010). Furthermore, scholars have investigated
this relationship at the level of the firm's operating business, but not
its innovation activities.
From an operationalization perspective, the study by Cohen,
Smith, and Mitchell (2008) represents one of the first attempts to go
beyond traditional financial performance measures when studying
the entrepreneurial phenomenon, hence proposing a multidimensional
outcome variable considering economic, social, and environmental
aspects. Rauter et al. (2018) have recently developed a measurement
system for open and sustainable innovation. They argue that eco-
nomic and sustainability innovation goals can be accomplished with
similar open innovation practices and collaboration partners, hence a
synergy between the two dimensions exists (Sarkar & Pansera,
2017). They claim that firms exhibiting optimal performance in sus-
tainable innovation also report the greatest reductions in environmen-
tal pollution, as well as increased resource efficiency (Table 1).
Regarding financial measures of performance, several studies have
highlighted the importance of the nonfinancial components of
ET AL.
TABLE 1 Details of the search string ran on Web of Science
Search field Selected criteria
Data range Published from 1990
to 2018
Language English
Run on Abstract, title, key words
Scientific field Social science
Date of running search string June 24, 2018
Total hits retrieved in Web of 575
Science database
Duplicated 15
Number of hits excluding duplicated 560
performance measurements in a long‐term perspective of competitive-
ness (e.g., Kaplan, 1984; Lyver & Lu, 2018; Otley, 1999; Schaltegger &
Wagner, 2011; Surroca et al., 2010; Waddock & Graves, 1998).
5 | FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AND
CONCLUSION
This paper has reviewed the existing literature regarding sustainable
innovation. A relevant aspect that has emerged from the analysis per-
tains to the multidisciplinarity of studies concerning sustainable inno-
vation. Indeed, researchers have analyzed numerous elements, such as
sustainability as a market (Klewitz & Hansen, 2013; Wagner, 2010),
social innovation (Hockerts, 2010), and the development of more
sustainable management systems (Maas & Reniers, 2013). Due to dif-
ficulties in defining the concept of sustainability, as well as the multi-
disciplinary nature of sustainable innovation, different approaches to
conceptualizing and operationalizing sustainable innovation constructs
exist. Therefore, we have analyzed various factors across multiple per-
spectives, including internal managerial, external relational, and perfor-
mance evaluation. We have identified the central issues and key
contrasting results, enabling us to highlight important topics for future
research. Table 2 presents a summary of our findings, hence demon-
strating the key theoretical perspectives, results, literature gaps, and
selected representative references for each of the levels considered.
As Table 2 underlines, the literature on sustainable innovation is
hampered by a lack of conceptual consensus. More specifically, a num-
ber of arguments speak for the theoretical and practical relevance of
producing a review on sustainable innovation. The results are equivo-
cal in terms of the magnitude and sign of the relationships reported.
At the internal‐managerial level, the sustainable innovation litera-
ture lacks evidence regarding the relationship between sustainable
practices, firm value, and competitiveness. Yet when examined in
detail, numerous open topics emerge. First, sustainable innovation
requires a strategic shift, sustained by dynamic capabilities (Del
Giudice et al., 2017). However, when and how this strategic shift
occurs remains unclear. Relatedly, the formal (or informal) structures
that firms design to manage the transition towards sustainable innova-
tion practices are critical, yet existing research has failed to sufficiently
CILLO ET AL. 9

TABLE 2 Summary of research findings and future research

Internal‐managerial perspective
Key lenses
Strategic management; innovation management; ambidexterity; business model innovation; information systems; knowledge management
Overall synopsis of research
Managerial, organizational, and planning affect sustainable innovation processes, which can be distinguished in radical (exploratory) and incremental
(exploitative) ones
SNM (Sustainable Niche Management) is often needed to manage sustainable innovations, especially radical ones
Information system and ambidextrous capabilities support sustainable innovation processes
Sustainable innovations often require novel business models
Representative references
Adams and Lamont (2003); Hall and Vredenburg (2003); Foxon and Pearson (2008); Schot and Geels (2008); Nill and Kemp (2009); Du et al. (2013);
Boons et al. (2013 a, b); Stahl et al. (2014); Dibrell et al. (2015); Longoni and Cagliano (2018)
Research gaps
Lack of the fundamental evidences about factors enabling sustainable practices
More understanding about technological niche external processes
Better comprehension of the tensions and paradoxes underlying sustainable innovation processes
Better comprehension of the ownership form(s) supporting sustainable innovation
Microfoundation approach to sustainable innovation (e.g., form of employees' engagement)
More understanding about the design and role of business model innovation for sustainable innovation
External‐relation perspective
Key lenses
Strategic alliances; stakeholder theory
Overall synopsis of research
Sustainable enterprises are intrinsically open organizations
Sustainable innovation is often the result of collaborative efforts
Especially external stakeholders' demands are relevant in shaping sustainable innovation practices
Stakeholder integration in sustainable innovation efforts helps to better define and target environmental and social goals
Representative references
Vollenbroek (2002); Katsoulakos and Katsoulacos (2007); Rocha et al. (2011); Ayuso et al. (2011); Seuring and Gold (2013)
Main research gaps
Lack of scientific evidence about how ecosystems and networks foster sustainable innovation
Better understanding of how to combine access and transformation of relevant stakeholder information
Lack of research on how to reduce the tensions when addressing different stakeholders' needs
Better understanding of how to internalize stakeholders' needs in sustainable innovation practices
To better define knowledge search and recombination strategies for sustainable innovation
To define criteria to identify the stakeholders that should be (primarily) involved when managing sustainable innovation processes
Performance evaluation perspective
Key lenses
Methodological approach
Overall synopsis of research
Composite indexes based on quantitative and qualitative data sourcing can be adopted to measure innovativeness from a sustainability point of
view
Main research gaps
Lack of fundamental evidences about cause‐and‐effect relationships between the various measures
To account for differences in innovation performance between organizations with diverse sustainability goals

(Continues)
10
TABLE 2 (Continued)
To distinguish between innovating firm, stakeholder, and society when assessing the impacts of sustainable innovations
To distinguish between short‐ and long‐term performance evaluation measures
Representative references
Vanclay (2004); Cohen et al. (2008); Kuckertz and Wagner (2010); Schaltegger and Wagner (2011); DiVito and Bohnsack (2017); Rauter et al. (2018)
examine this topic. Second, it has been highlighted that particular ten-
sions and paradoxes emerge when firms are involved in sustainable
innovation processes, calling for ambidextrous capabilities (Martinez‐
Conesa et al., 2017; Shrivastava & Hart, 1995; Soto‐Acosta et al.,
2018). However, how best to develop these capabilities in the specific
context of sustainable innovation is yet to be revealed. Third, besides
the structures required to facilitate sustainable innovation processes,
the creation of an internal culture to sustain this process is important,
necessitating further research into how to create such a culture within
an organization. Fourth, analyses of ownership form (e.g., family vs.
nonfamily), top management characteristics, and the ways in which a
firm's employees perceive or address sustainability objectives in inno-
vation activities are all surprisingly inchoate. All in all, we contend that
a microfoundational approach is required to further elucidate sustain-
able innovation initiatives.
At the external‐relational level, certain topics pertaining to the
enabling role of openness in sustainable innovation also require deeper
analysis. Indeed, as the academic discussion into open innovation dem-
onstrates, firms are required to adopt a collaborative approach, in
which chain partners and even competitors work together to develop
new products and processes quickly and effectively (Cappa et al.,
2016; Chesbrough, 2006). To this end, firms should develop the neces-
sary organizational and individual capabilities to explore and integrate
external sources of information. Therefore, the ways in which knowl-
edge search and recombination strategies are designed and managed
for sustainable innovation require further investigation. Numerous
studies have discussed the business case for sustainable innovation
(e.g., Wagner, 2010). In this regard, the critical issue is to develop sus-
tainable innovation strategies in order to respond to the expectations
of stakeholders more effectively (Ayuso, Rodrıguez, & Ricart, 2006),
balancing economic rationale and sustainability orientation
(Schaltegger & Wagner, 2011). Despite the salience of this topic, sev-
eral questions remain unanswered. In particular, it is important to iden-
tify the stakeholders that should be involved and that guide firms when
managing sustainable innovation processes. In addition to their relative
levels of significance, future research should also consider the fact that
stakeholders may have conflicting objectives and needs with respect
to the firm and/or other stakeholders, necessitating methods and prac-
tices that can reconcile any misalignment.
From a performance evaluation perspective, few studies have
empirically explored organizational performance outcomes concerning
sustainable innovation. The analysis of the relationship between
sustainability‐oriented innovation practices and performances, there-
fore, can contribute to a better understanding of the critical issues
related to the measurement of sustainability‐oriented innovation out-
comes (Pujari, 2006; Schaltegger & Wagner, 2006).
CILLO ET AL.
Future studies may add to the debate into how scholars evaluate
the performance impacts of firms engaged in sustainable innovation
processes. It may also be fruitful to explore firm‐level factors from
societal‐level effects when assessing the impacts of sustainable inno-
vations. Finally, given that the sustainable innovation path is longer
than the conventional innovation equivalent (i.e., sustainable innova-
tions require niche transitions), a crucial issue pertains to how short‐
and long‐term returns shape decisions regarding sustainable innova-
tion projects.
RE FE RE NC ES
Aaker, D. A., & Keller, K. L. (1993). Interpreting cross‐cultural replications
of brand extension research. International Journal of Research in Market-
ing, 10(1), 55–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0167‐8116(93)90033‐U
Adams, G. L., & Lamont, B. T. (2003). Knowledge management systems and
developing sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge
Management, 7(2), 142–154. https://doi.org/10.1108/
13673270310477342
Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. (2007). Putting
the S back in corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of
social change in organizations. The Academy of Management Review,
32(3), 836–863. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.25275678
Alkemade, F., & Suurs, R. A. A. (2012). Patterns of expectations for emerging
sustainable technologies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change,
79(3), 448–456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2011.08.014
Andriopoulos, C., & Lewis, M. W. (2009). Exploitation‐exploration
tensions and organizational ambidexterity: Managing paradoxes of
innovation. Organization Science, 20, 696–717. https://doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.1080.0406
Anttonen, M., Halme, M., Houtbeckers, E., & Nurkka, J. (2013). The other
side of sustainable innovation: Is there a demand for innovative ser-
vices. Journal of Cleaner Production, 45, 89–103. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.12.019
Ayuso, S., Ángel Rodríguez, M., García‐Castro, R., & Ángel Ariño, M. (2011).
Does stakeholder engagement promote sustainable innovation orienta-
tion? Industrial Management & Data Systems, 111(9), 1399–1417.
https://doi.org/10.1108/02635571111182764
Ayuso, S., Rodrıguez, M. A., & Ricart, J. E. (2006). Using stakeholder
dialogue as a source for new ideas: A dynamic capability underlying
sustainable innovation, corporate governance. The international Journal
of Business in Society, 6(4), 475–490.
Barney, J. (1991). Firm resources and sustained competitive advantage.
Journal of Management, 17, 99–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/
014920639101700108
Bates, B. C., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Wu, S., & Palutikof, J. P. (Eds.) (2008). Cli-
mate change and water. Technical paper of the intergovernmental panel
on climate change. Geneva: IPCC Secretariat.
Bocken, N. M. P., Short, S. W., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2014). A literature and
practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 65, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2013.11.039
CILLO ET AL.
Bolton, R., & Hannon, M. (2016). Governing sustainability transitions
through business model innovation: Towards a systems understanding.
Research Policy, 45(9), 1731–1742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
respol.2016.05.003
Boons, F., & Lüdeke‐Freund, F. (2013). Business models for sustainable
innovation: State‐of‐the‐art and steps towards a research agenda. Jour-
nal of Cleaner Production, 45, 9–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.07.007
Boons, F., Quist, J., Montalvo, C., & Wagner, M. (2013). Sustainable inno-
vation, business models and economic performance: An overview.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 45(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2012.08.013
Bos‐Brouwers, H. E. J. (2010). Corporate sustainability and innovation in
SMEs: Evidence of themes and activities in practice. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 19(7), 417–435.
Branco, M. C., & Rodrigues, L. L. (2006). Corporate social responsibility and
resource‐based perspectives. Journal of Business Ethics, 69(2), 111–132.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐006‐9071‐z
Campos‐Climent, V., & Sanchis‐Palacio, R. J. (2017). The influence of
knowledge absorptive capacity on shared value creation in social enter-
prises. Journal of Knowledge Management, 21(5), 1163–1182.
Cappa, F., Del Sette, F., Hayes, D., & Rosso, F. (2016). How to deliver open
sustainable innovation: An integrated approach for a sustainable mar-
ketable product. Sustainability, 8(12), 1341. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su8121341
Carayannis, E. G., Grigoroudis, E., Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M. R., &
Sindakis, S. (2017). An exploration of contemporary organizational arti-
facts and routines in a sustainable excellence context. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 21(1), 35–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM‐
10‐2015‐0366
Carrillo‐Hermosilla, J., del Río, P., & Könnölä, T. (2010). Diversity of
eco‐innovations: Reflections from selected case studies. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 18, 1073–1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2010.02.014
Chen, Y. S., Chang, C. H., & Lin, Y. H. (2014). The determinants of green
radical and incremental innovation performance: Green shared vision,
green absorptive capacity, and green organizational ambidexterity. Sus-
tainability, 6, 7787–7806. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6117787
Chesbrough, H. W. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating
and profiting from technology. Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Christensen, C. M., & Raynor, M. (2003). The innovator's solution: Creating
and sustaining successful growth. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business
School Press.
Cohen, B., Smith, B., & Mitchell, R. (2008). Toward a sustainable conceptu-
alization of dependent variables in entrepreneurship research. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 17(2), 107–119. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.505
Dangelico, R. M., Pontrandolfo, P., & Pujari, D. (2013). Developing sustain-
able new products in the textile and upholstered furniture industries:
Role of external integrative capabilities. Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 30, 642–658. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12013
Del Giudice, M., Carayannis, E. G., & Maggioni, V. (2016). Global knowl-
edge intensive enterprises and international technology transfer:
Emerging perspectives from a quadruple helix environment. The Journal
of Technology Transfer, 42(2), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10961‐016‐9496‐1
Del Giudice, M., Della Peruta, M. R., & Carayannis, E. (2010). Knowledge
and the family business. New York: Springer. ISBN: 978‐1‐4419‐
7352‐8.
11
Del Giudice, M., Khan, Z., De Silva, M., Scuotto, V., Caputo, F., &
Carayannis, E. (2017). The microlevel actions undertaken by owner‐
managers in improving the sustainability practices of cultural and crea-
tive small and medium enterprises: A United Kingdom–Italy
comparison. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 38(9), 1396–1414.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.2237
Del Giudice, M., & Straub, D. (2011). IT and entrepreneurism: An on‐again,
off‐again love affair or a marriage? MIS Quarterly, 35, III–VII.
Desouza, K. C., Awazu, Y., Jha, S., Dombrowski, C., Papagari, S., Baloh, P., &
Kim, J. Y. (2008). Customer‐driven innovation. Research‐
Technology Management, 51(3), 35–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/
08956308.2008.11657503
Di Stefano, G., Peteraf, M., & Verona, G. (2010). Dynamic capabilities
deconstructed: A bibliographic investigation into the origins, develop-
ment, and future directions of the research domain. Industrial and
Corporate Change, 19(4), 1187–1204. https://doi.org/10.1093/icc/
dtq027
Dibrell, C., Craig, J. B., Kim, J., & Johnson, A. J. (2015). Establishing how
natural environmental competency, organizational social conscious-
ness, and innovativeness relate. Journal of Business Ethics, 127(3),
591–605. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐013‐2043‐1
DiVito, L., & Bohnsack, R. (2017). Entrepreneurial orientation and its effect
on sustainability decision tradeoffs: The case of sustainable fashion
firms. Journal of Business Venturing, 32(5), 569–587. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.002
Dodgson, M., Gann, D. M., & Phillips, N. (2014). The Oxford handbook of
innovation management. Oxford and New York: Oxford University
Press.
Du, W., Pan, S. L., & Zuo, M. (2013). How to balance sustainability and
profitability in technology organizations: An ambidextrous perspective.
IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 60, 366–385. https://
doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2012.2206113
Evans, S., Vladimirova, D., Holgado, M., Van Fossen, K., Yang, M., Silva, E.
A., & Barlow, C. Y. (2017). Business model innovation for sustainability:
Towards a unified perspective for creation of sustainable business
models. Business Strategies and the Environment, 26(85), 597–608.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.1939
Farla, J., Markard, J., Raven, R., & Coenen, L. (2012). Sustainability transi-
tions in the making: A closer look at actors, strategies and resources.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79(6), 991–998. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.02.001
Ferrero‐Ferrero, I., Fernández‐Izquierdo, M. A., Muñoz‐Torres, M. J., &
Bellés‐Colomer, L. (2018). Stakeholder engagement in sustainability
reporting in higher education: An analysis of key internal stakeholders'
expectations. International Journal of Sustainability in Higher Education,
19(2), 313–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJSHE‐06‐2016‐0116
Flammer, C. (2013). Corporate social responsibility and shareholder reac-
tion: The environmental awareness of investors. Academy of
Management Journal, 56(3), 758–781. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amj.2011.0744
Floricel, S., Dougherty, D., Miller, R., & Ibanescu, M. (2008). Network struc-
tures and the reproduction of resources for sustainable innovation.
International Journal of Technology Management, 41, 379–406. https://
doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2008.016789
Forstater M., Zadek S., Guang Y., Yu K., Hong C. X., George M. (2010). Cor-
porate responsibility in African development: Insights from an emerging
dialogue. Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative. http://www.hks.har-
vard.edu/m‐rcbg/CSRI/publications/workingpaper_60.pdf
Foxon, T. J., & Pearson, P. J. G. (2008). Overcoming barriers to innovation
and diffusion of cleaner technologies: Some features of a sustainable
innovation policy regime. Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(1), 148–161.
12
Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach.
Marshfield: Pitman.
Garcia, R., & Calantone, R. (2002). A critical look at technological innova-
tion typology and innovativeness terminology: A literature review.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 19(2), 110–132. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0737‐6782(01)00132‐1
Geels, F. W., Hekkert, M. P., & Jacobsson, S. (2008). The dynamics of sustain-
able innovation journeys. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management,
20(5), 521–536. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292982
Gibson, C. B., & Birkinshaw, J. (2004). The antecedents, consequences, and
mediating role of organizational ambidexterity. The Academy of
Management Journal, 47, 209–226.
Greenwood, M. (2007). Stakeholder engagement: Beyond the myth of cor-
porate responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4), 315–327.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐007‐9509‐y
Greenwood, R., Díaz, A. M., Li, S. X., & Lorente, J. C. (2010). The multiplicity
of institutional logics and the heterogeneity of organizational
responses. Organization Science, 21(2), 521–539. https://doi.org/
10.1287/orsc.1090.0453
Güttel, W. H., Konlechner, S. W., & Trede, J. K. (2015). Standardized indi-
viduality versus individualized standardization: The role of the
context in structurally ambidextrous organizations. Review of Manage-
rial Science, 9, 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846‐014‐0156‐2
Hall, J., & Vredenburg, H. (2003). The challenges of innovating for sustain-
able development. MIT Sloan Management Review, 45(1), 60–68.
Hallstedt, S. I., Bertoni, M., & Isaksson, O. (2015). Assessing sustainability
and value of manufacturing processes: A case in the aerospace indus-
try. Journal of Cleaner Production, 108, 169–182. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.06.017
Hockerts, K. (2010). Social entrepreneurship between market and mission.
International Review of Entrepreneurship, 8(2), 1–22.
Hoogma, R., Kemp, R., Schot, J. W., & Truffer, B. (2002). Experimenting for
sustainable transport. The approach of strategic niche management. New
York: Spon Press.
Hsieh, Y. C., Lin, K. Y., Lu, C., & Rong, K. (2017). Governing a sustainable
business ecosystem in Taiwan's circular economy: The story of spring
pool glass. Sustainability, 9, 1068. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9061068
Hutchins, M. J., & Sutherland, J. W. (2008). An exploration of measures of
social sustainability and their application to supply chain decisions.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 16(15), 1688–1698. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2008.06.001
Iles, A., & Martin, A. N. (2013). Expanding bioplastics production: Sustain-
able business innovation in the chemical industry. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 45, 38–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.05.008
Inigo, E. A., Albareda, L., & Paavo, R. (2017). Business model innovation for
sustainability: Exploring evolutionary and radical approaches through
dynamic capabilities. Industry and Innovation, 24(5), 515–542.
Jones, T. M., & Wicks, A. C. (1999). Convergent stakeholder theory. Acad-
emy of Management Review, 24(2), 206–221. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.1999.1893929
Kaplan, R. S. (1984). The evolution of management accounting. The
Accounting Review (July), 390–418.
Katsoulakos, T., & Katsoulacos, Y. (2007). Strategic management, corporate
responsibility and stakeholder management integrating corporate
responsibility principles and stakeholder approaches into mainstream
strategy: A stakeholder‐oriented and integrative strategic management
framework. Corporate Governance International Journal of Business in
Society, 7(4), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/14720700710820443
Kemp, R., Schot, J., & Hoogma, R. (1998). Regime shifts to sustainability
through processes of niche formation: The approach of strategic niche
CILLO ET AL.
management. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 10(2),
175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537329808524310
Kessler, E. H., & Chakrabarti, A. K. (1996). Innovation speed: A conceptual
model of context, antecedents, and outcomes. The Academy of
Management Review, 21(4), 1143–1191. https://doi.org/10.5465/
amr.1996.9704071866
Kivimaa, P., & Kern, F. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support?
Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy,
45(1), 205–217. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.09.008
Klewitz, J., & Hansen, E. G. (2013). Sustainability‐oriented innovation in
SMEs: A systematic literature review of existing practices and actors
involved. Proceedings of the XXII ISPIM Conference.
Knott, A. M. (2003). Persistent heterogeneity and sustainable innovation.
Strategic Management Journal, 24(8), 687–705. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smj.326
Kuckertz, A., & Wagner, M. (2010). The influence of sustainability orienta-
tion on entrepreneurial intentions—Investigating the role of business
experience. Journal of Business Venturing, 25, 524–539. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2009.09.001
Longoni, A., & Cagliano, R. (2018). Sustainable innovativeness and the tri-
ple bottom line: The role of organizational time perspective. Journal
of Business Ethics, 151(4), 1097–1120. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10551‐016‐3239‐y
Lopes, C. M., Scavarda, A., Hofmeister, L. F., Tavares Thomé, A. M., &
Roehe Vaccaro, G. L. (2017). An analysis of the interplay between orga-
nizational sustainability, knowledge management, and open innovation.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 42, 476–488.
Lyver, M. J., & Lu, T. J. (2018). Sustaining innovation performance in SMEs:
Exploring the roles of strategic entrepreneurship and IT capabilities.
Sustainability, 10(2), 442. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10020442
Maas, S., & Reniers, G. (2013). Development of a CSR model for practice:
Connecting five inherent areas of sustainable business. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 64(1), 104–114.
Malerba, F. (2004). Sectoral systems of innovation: Concepts, issues and anal-
yses of six major sectors in Europe (p. 2004). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511493270
Malone, T. F., & Yohe, G. W. (2002). Knowledge partnerships for a sustain-
able, equitable and stable society. Journal of Knowledge Management,
6(4), 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270210440875
Martinez‐Conesa, I., Soto‐Acosta, P., & Carayannis, E. G. (2017). On the
path towards open innovation: Assessing the role of knowledge man-
agement capability and environmental dynamism in SMEs. Journal of
Knowledge Management, 21(3), 553–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/
JKM‐09‐2016‐0403
McWilliams, A., & Siegel, D. (2001). Corporate social responsibility: A the-
ory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 26(1),
117–127. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2001.4011987
Meelen, T., & Farla, J. (2013). Towards an integrated framework for
analysing sustainable innovation policy. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 25(8), 957–970. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537325.2013.823146
Mourik, R., & Raven, R. (2006). A practitioner's view on strategic niche man-
agement. Petten: Energy Research Centre of the Netherlands.
Nasiri, M., Tura, N., & Ojanen, V. (2017). Developing disruptive innovation
for sustainability: A review on impact of Internet of things. Conference:
2017 Proceedings of PICMET '17: Technology Management for Intercon-
nected World At: Portland, Oregon, USA Affiliation: LUT School of
Business and Management.
Nelson, J., & Zadek, S. (2000). Partnership alchemy—New social partnerships
in Europe. Copenhagen: The Copenhagen Centre.
CILLO ET AL.
Nill, J., & Kemp, R. (2009). Evolutionary approaches for sustainable innova-
tion policies: From niche to paradigm. Research Policy, 38(4), 668–680.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.011
Otley, D. (1999). Performance management: A framework for management
control systems research. Management Accounting Research, 10(4),
363–382. https://doi.org/10.1006/mare.1999.0115
Owen, R., Stilgoe, J., Macnaghten, P., Gorman, M., Fisher, E., & Guston, D.
(2013). A framework for responsible innovation. In R. Owen, J. Bessant,
& M. Heintz (Eds.), Responsible innovation: Managing the responsible
emergence of science and innovation in society (pp. 27–50). Sussex:
Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118551424.ch2
Pastré, O., & Vigier, M. (2003). Le capitalisme déboussolé. Apres Enron et
Vivendi: a soxante réformes pour un nouveau gouvernement d'entreprise.
Paris: La Découverte.
Pel, B. (2014). Intersections in system innovation: A nested‐case methodol-
ogy to study co‐evolving innovation journeys. Technology Analysis &
Strategic Management, 26(3), 307–320. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09537325.2013.850656
Pettersen, I. N., Boks, C., & Tukker, A. (2013). Framing the role of design in
transformation of consumption practices: Beyond the designer‐
product‐user triad. International Journal of Technology Management,
63, 70–103. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2013.055580
Poksinska, B., Dahlgaard, J. J., Jörgen, & Eklund, J. (2003). Implementing ISO
14000 in Sweden: Motives, benefits and comparisons with ISO 9000.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, 20(5), 585–606.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2007). Strategy and society: The link
between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility.
Harvard Business Review, 84(12), 78–92.
Pujari, D. (2006). Eco‐innovation and new product development:
Understanding the influences on market performance. Technovation,
26, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2004.07.006
Rauter, R., Globocnik, D., Perl‐Vorbach, E., & Baumgartner, R. J. (2018).
Open innovation and its effects on economic and sustainability innova-
tion performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, in press. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jik.2018.03.004
Riahi‐Belkaoui, A. (2003). Intellectual capital and firm performance of US
multinational firms: A study of the resource‐based and stakeholder
views. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 4(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/
10.1108/14691930310472839
Rocha, S. P. B., Soares, E. J. O., & Medeiros, D. D. (2011). A model for
evaluating environmental impacts in gas stations. Management of
Environmental Quality, 22(6), 803–825. https://doi.org/10.1108/
14777831111170885
Russo, M. V., & Fouts, P. A. (1997). A resource‐based perspective on
corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy of
Management Journal, 40, 534–559.
Sarkar, S., & Pansera, M. (2017). Sustainability‐driven innovation at the
bottom: Insights from grassroots ecopreneurs. Technological Forecast-
ing and Social Change, 114, 327–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2016.08.029
Schaltegger, S., & Wagner, M. (2011). Sustainable entrepreneurship and
sustainability innovation: Categories and interactions. Business Strategy
and the Environment, 20(4), 222–237. https://doi.org/10.1002/bse.682
Schot, J. W., & Geels, F. W. (2008). Strategic niche management and
sustainable innovation journeys: Theory, findings, research agenda
and policy. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 20, 537–554.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802292651
Seuring, S., & Gold, S. (2013). Sustainability management beyond corporate
boundaries: From stakeholders to performance. Journal of Cleaner Pro-
duction, 56, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.033
13
Seyfang, G., & Longhurst, N. (2016). What influences the diffusion of
grassroots innovations for sustainability? Investigating community cur-
rency niches. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 28(1), 1–23.
Sharkie, R. (2003). Knowledge creation and its place in the development of
sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Knowledge Management,
7(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1108/13673270310463590
Sharma, S., & Henriques, I. (2005). Stakeholder influences on sustainability
practices in the Canadian forest products industry. Strategic Manage-
ment Journal, 26, 159–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.439
Sharma, S., & Vredenburg, H. (1998). Proactive corporate environmental
strategy and the development of competitively valuable organizational
capabilities. Strategic Management Journal, 19(8), 729–753. https://doi.
org/10.1002/(SICI)1097‐0266(199808)19:8<729::AID‐SMJ967>3.0.
CO;2‐4
Shrivastava, P., & Hart, S. (1995). Creating sustainable corporations.
Business Strategy and the Environment, 4(3), 154–165. https://doi.org/
10.1002/bse.3280040307
Smith, A., Kern, F., Raven, R., & Verhees, B. (2014). Spaces for sustainable
innovation: Solar photovoltaic electricity in the UK. Technological Fore-
casting and Social Change, 81, 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2013.02.001
Smorodinskaya, N. V., Russell, M. G., & Katukov, K. (2017). Still Innovation
ecosystems vs. innovation systems in terms of collaboration and co‐
creation of value. Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Confer-
ence on System Sciences (2017). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/
10125/41798.
Smyth, H., Magnus, G., & Ganskau, E. (2010). The value of trust in project
business. International Journal of Project Management, 28(2), 117–129.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2009.11.007
Soloman, R., & Hansen, K. (1985). It's good business. New York: Atheneum.
Soto‐Acosta, P., Popa, S., & Martinez‐Conesa, I. (2018). Information tech-
nology, knowledge management and environmental dynamism as
drivers of innovation ambidexterity: A study in SMEs. Journal of Knowl-
edge Management, 22(4), 824–849. https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM‐10‐
2017‐0448
Spender, J. C., Corvello, V., & Rippa, P. (2017). Startups and open innova-
tion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Innovation
Management, 20, 4–30. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM‐12‐2015‐0131
Stahl, B. C., Eden, G., Jirotka, M., & Coeckelbergh, M. (2014). From com-
puter ethics to responsible research and innovation in ICT: The
transition of reference discourses informing ethics‐related research in
information systems. Information & Management, 51(6), 810–818.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2014.01.001
Surroca, J., Tribo, J. A., & Waddock, S. (2010). Corporate responsibility and
financial performance: The role of intangible resources. Strategic Man-
agement Journal, 31(5), 463–490. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.820
Tan, K. H., Zhan, Y., Ji, G., Ye, F., & Chang, C. (2015). Harvesting big data to
enhance supply chain innovation capabilities: An analytic infrastructure
based on deduction graph. International Journal of Production Econom-
ics, 165, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2014.12.034
Teece, D. J. (1998). Capturing value from knowledge assets: The new
economy, markets for know‐how, and intangible assets. California Man-
agement Review, 40(3), 55–79. https://doi.org/10.2307/41165943
Teece, D. J., Pisano, G., & Shuen, A. (1997). Dynamic capabilities and
strategic management. Strategic Management Journal, 18(7), 509–533.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097‐0266(199708)18:7<509::AID‐
SMJ882>3.0.CO;2‐Z
Tello, S. F., & Yoon, E. (2008). Examining drivers of sustainable innovation.
International Journal of Business Strategy, 8(3), 164–169.
14
Teoh, S. H., Welch, I., & Wazzan, C. P. (1999). The effect of socially activist
investment policies on the financial markets: Evidence from the South
African boycott. Journal of Business, 72(1), 35–89. https://doi.org/
10.1086/209602
Thomson, M., & Heron, P. (2006). Relational quality and innovative perfor-
mance in R&D based science and technology firms. Human Resource
Management Journal, 16(1), 28–47. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726‐
008‐9138‐6
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for
developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of
systematic review. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467‐8551.00375
Unruh, G. D., Kiron, N., Kruschwitz, M., Reeves, H., Rubel, and zum zum
Felde, A.M. (2016). Investing for a sustainable future. MIT Sloan
Management Review.
van Geenhuizen, M., & Ye, Q. (2014). Responsible innovators: Open
networks on the way to sustainability transitions. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 87, 28–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2014.06.001
Vanclay, F. (2004). The triple bottom line and impact assessment: How do
TBL, EIA, SIA, SEA and EMS relate to each other? Journal of Environ-
mental Assessment Policy and Management, 6(3), 265–288. https://doi.
org/10.1142/S1464333204001729
Voegtlin, C., & Scherer, A. G. (2017). Responsible innovation and the
innovation of responsibility: Governing sustainable development in a
globalized world. Journal of Business Ethics, 143(2), 227–243. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10551‐015‐2769‐z
Vollenbroek, F. A. (2002). Sustainable development and the challenge of
innovation. Journal of Cleaner Production, 10(3), 215–223. https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0959‐6526(01)00048‐8
Vrontis, D., Bresciani, S., & Giacosa, E. (2016). Tradition and innovation in
Italian wine family businesses. British Food Journal, 118(8),
1883–1897. https://doi.org/10.1108/BFJ‐05‐2016‐0192
Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1998). The corporate social performance–
financial performance link. Strategic Management Journal, 18(4),
303–319.
Wagner, M. (2010). The role of corporate sustainability performance for
economic performance: A firm‐level analysis of moderation effects.
CILLO ET AL.
Ecological Economics, 69, 1553–1560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ecolecon.2010.02.017
Walley, N., & Whitehead, B. (1994). It's not easy being green. Harvard
Business Review, 72(3), 46–52.
Walsh, J. P. (2005). Book review essay: Taking stock of stakeholder
management. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 426–438.
https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.16387898
Watson, R. T., Boudreau, M.‐C., & Chen, A. J. (2010). Information systems
and environmentally sustainable development: Energy informatics and
new directions for the IS community. MIS Quarterly, 34(1), 23–38.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20721413
Wernerfelt, B. (1995). The resource‐based view of the firm: Ten years
after. Strategic Management Journal, 16(3), 171–174. https://doi.org/
10.1002/smj.4250160303
Werther, W. B. Jr., & Chandler, D. (2011). Strategic corporate social respon-
sibility: Stakeholders in global environment (2nd ed.) (p. 413). London:
Sage Publications. ISBN: 978‐1‐4129‐7453‐0.
Williams, A., Philipp, F., Kennedy, S., & Whiteman, G. (2017). Systems
thinking: A review of sustainability management research. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 148, 866–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2017.02.002
Wu, G.‐C. (2017). Effects of socially responsible supplier development and
sustainability‐oriented innovation on sustainable development:
Empirical evidence from SMEs. Corporate Social Responsibility and
Environmental Management, in press, 24, 661–675. https://doi.org/
10.1002/csr.1435
Zeng, D., Hu, J., & Ouyang, T. (2017). Managing innovation paradox in the
sustainable innovation ecosystem: A case study of ambidextrous
capability in a focal firm. Sustainability, 9, 2091–2105. https://doi.
org/10.3390/su9112091
How to cite this article: Cillo V, Petruzzelli AM, Ardito L,
Del Giudice M. Understanding sustainable innovation: A
systematic literature review. Corp Soc Resp Env Ma. 2019;
1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1783