Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Research & Social Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/erss

Original research article

How governments, universities, and companies contribute to renewable

energy development? A municipal innovation policy perspective of the
triple helix
Laura Visintainer Lerman a, Wolfgang Gerstlberger b, Mateus Ferreira Lima a, c,
Alejandro G. Frank a, *
a
Organizational Engineering Group (Núcleo de Engenharia Organizacional – NEO), Department of Industrial Engineering, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul,
Brazil
b
School of Business and Governance, Department of Business Administration, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia
c
Fisher College of Business, Department of Management Sciences, The Ohio State University, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Some countries have chosen to focus on bottom-up initiatives to enhance the development of renewable energy
Triple helix systems (RES), using the local level (municipalities) as a pillar in this development. Municipalities need to
Innovation policy expand their innovation policies to support such transition toward renewable energies. The triple helix (TH)
Renewable energy systems
model, based on university, industry, and government, can play an important role in supporting and establishing
Germany
Municipalities
local policies for RES. We analyze the contribution by the TH actors to the development of three innovation
policy criteria for RES development: Creation of cooperative systems, generation and transfer of knowledge, and
development of municipal locational factors. Our results are based on a quantitative survey of 727 mid-sized and
large municipalities from all regions in Germany. We provide empirical evidence of the relevance of the TH
model to support these policy criteria. We also show that rather than treating the TH model as a single effect on
RES development, each of the TH actors provides different contributions to RES policies. The government and the
private sector have an important role in all three policy criteria. At the same time, we only found a contribution
by universities to knowledge generation and transfer, but not to the two other criteria. Thus, in a developed
context, the integration of government and private companies is a driving factor to create innovation conditions
for RES development, while universities concentrate on creating structural knowledge for innovation in the RES
context.

1. Introduction actors’ contributions. Previous studies have summarized the somewhat

In recent years, the interest in switching from conventional energy
sources to renewable energy systems (RES) has been widespread in
several developed countries. Some of these countries have supported
bottom-up initiatives to RES, which often complement national and/or
federal renewable energy policies. Typically, in such cases, the local
level (municipalities) contributes with an additional municipal element
to the overall national renewable energy strategy [1]. Since new policies
are formulated according to the overall needs of a region, regional actors
play an important role in establishing local policies. Indeed, the evolu­
tion of RES from a regional perspective is largely dependent on such
ambivalent developments of local and regional renewable energy
(innovation) systems in different countries [2,3]. Decentralized renew­
able energy initiatives provided additional ideas and resources, which
have contributed to the energy transitions on the federal and national
levels (e.g., [4-6]). However, the literature also mentions cases of dys­
functionalities between decentralized and centralized strategies [3].
Furthermore, structural, legal, and political shortcomings, like weak
urban and territorial planning policies, can negatively affect the
outcome of decentralized renewable energy initiatives [7]. In this sense,
the role of regional actors to build decentralized RES has been addressed
from different and fragmented views in the literature.

* Corresponding author at: Av. Osvaldo Aranha 99 – Sala LOPP 508 – 5◦ andar, Escola de Engenharia, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Centro, CEP
90035190 Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
E-mail address: ag.frank@ufrgs.br (A.G. Frank).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101854
Received 30 January 2020; Received in revised form 15 September 2020; Accepted 10 November 2020
Available online 28 November 2020
2214-6296/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
L.V. Lerman et al.
One of the multi-actors’ perspectives for analyzing regional inno­
vation for RES development is the triple helix (TH) innovation model,
which considers the role of government, universities, and the private
sector [8]. As the three actors in the TH model participate in the same
region, they can contribute to transforming a specific RES, generating
wealth through policy, innovation, and technology development [9].
The TH model relies on regional and local innovation activity, consid­
ering geographical characteristics that influence innovation activities
and actors’ involvement [10]. As Kostevšek et al. [7] pointed out, mu­
nicipalities can be considered microcarriers to develop RES. As inter­
mediary actors are important for energy transition implementation [11],
we adopt the TH model to understand these actors and contribute to
integrating energy policy with practice. The literature on renewable
energy systems has not yet addressed systemically and empirically the
different TH actors’ contributions to RES’s development. There is a gap
in the literature to understand local contextual factors, and our paper
helps fill this gap by studying local factors and the innovation system
[7,8]. Recent studies have shown that RES benefited from implementing
innovation policies at the municipal level, i.e., policies focused on
creating new technological solutions and conditions to support RES
development at the local level [1]. Frank et al. [1] show that creating
policies to enhance knowledge generation and cooperation between
stakeholders in municipalities results in higher levels of RES develop­
ment. However, their study did not show who are these regional actors
that contribute to creating each of such policies, which is our main
concern in this present study. In this sense, previous investigations have
suggested that a deeper engagement of the TH actors would be necessary
for self-sustaining regional and municipal development [12]. As deeper
engagement by TH actors we refer to the evolution and hybridization of
TH model with more strategic contribution of these actors [8]. Only a
few studies have associated the TH role with RES and only about very
specific aspects [13–15], while the specific contribution by each of the
actors to the innovation system is usually neglected [16], especially
when considering their contributions to different innovation policies for
RES development. In this sense, we address the following research
question: What is the contribution by the different triple helix actors in the
development of innovation policy criteria for municipal RES?
Although the innovation literature assumes that all TH actors are
essentially necessary for any innovation system [8], our research ques­
tion assumes that they can contribute differently (if at all) to innovation
policy development for RES. We aim to answer this research question by
analyzing the contribution by the three TH actors – i.e., government,
universities, and the private sector – to three main innovation policy
criteria for RES development: Creation of cooperation activities, genera­
tion and transfer of knowledge, and development of local factors [1]. Our
study is based on a large-scale survey across 727 mid-sized and large
municipalities from all regions in Germany – one of the leading countries
in using renewable energy sources. We chose Germany’s case for our
study because it follows a very advanced energy transition strategy on
the federal and local/regional levels [17]. Germany’s case is relevant for
generalizations because it has similarities with other EU and OECD
countries about its energy system’s liberalization and decentralization
process since the 1980s [18]. On the other hand, Germany can present
singularities within the EU countries, since prior literature has also re­
ported structural differences in the development of RES as between
Sweden and Germany cases with local initiatives [19]. Furthermore,
Germany is a good case for studying local initiatives because the mu­
nicipalities in this country have a very strong constitutional status [20].
In studying this case, we found that: (i) All TH actors are important for
the generation and transfer of RES knowledge in the region; (ii) the
universities have a significant association with the generation and
transfer of RES knowledge, but not with the other two policies; (iii)
government and private actors are strongly associated with policies that
enhance cooperation activities for innovation in the RES, meaning that
they can provide a normative and promotion context for collaboration,
and direct investments in joint innovation activities, respectively. These
2
Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854
results contribute to the discussion about the TH model dynamics in the
development of innovation policies for RES, showing the potential
boundaries of each of the involved RES actors.
2. Triple helix and renewable energy systems
Several models have been proposed to address how a regional
innovation can be promoted. Some of them are the techno-economic
network model, the national innovation system model, the triple helix
model, the open innovation model, and the quadruple and quintuple
helix models [21]. As Villarreal and Calvo [21] analyzed, each of these
models considers different perspectives on how knowledge is transferred
among the stakeholders to create value in the innovation system. Some
of these models focus more on the interaction of actors to create synergy,
such as the network management perspective for RES development
[22,23], while others consider the structural conditions of the system, as
in the regional innovation systems [21]. We adopt a third stream that
focuses on the actors’ role, following the Triple Helix (TH) perspective.
The TH models focus on the contribution of main actors to the devel­
opment of regional innovation: different types of universities, government,
and private sector [24]. Universities comprehend, in a general sense, ac­
tivities including education and research actors in society. The govern­
ment pillar of the TH model considers the public agencies at different
levels, from national to local, that creates public policies, including
promotion and regulation. The original TH model is comprehensive in
the private sector and includes all social and private initiatives not
included in the other two pillars, including private corporations and
non-governmental initiatives, including cooperatives. Other derivative
models from the TH model have proposed new dimensions (e.g.,
quadruple and quintuple helix), separating the private initiative from
social engagement [21]. However, we adopted the most classical
approach of these three dimensions because it is a consolidated frame­
work in both academy and policy-making communities, which provides
a good interface for empirical research. In this model, each of these
actors plays an important role in promoting the economy and society
through innovation [22]. Therefore, TH provides a suitable framework
that looks at these actors rather on the way knowledge flows (e.g., open
innovation model) or how the regional system is constituted (e.g., na­
tional innovation system).
The triple helix is crucial for developing sustainable innovation
systems, mostly because the management of natural resources involves
complex problems that single actors cannot solve by themselves [23].
Sustainable innovation projects may use the TH model to accelerate and
implement innovation. Based on recent examples of the implementation
of RES, we consider RES as “a network of actors, rules and material
artifacts that influences the speed and direction of technological change
toward the specific use of renewable energy sources to produce elec­
tricity, heating/cooling and transportation” ([1], p. 354). RES is a
component of a larger structural layer’s technological innovation system
(country, region, and/or municipality) [24]. Many municipalities have
focused their attention on RES while switching from conventional en­
ergy sources to renewable sources, supported by energy policies to
achieve this goal [1]. Furthermore, according to Frank et al. [1], mu­
nicipalities can act as coordinators of RES development while coopera­
tion activities and local knowledge are enablers of RES development.
The TH model can play an important role in developing an innova­
tion policy focused on RES development, supporting the municipalities
in this development. As innovation policy, we refer to the public policy
that can be established in a community to advance innovation. Coor­
dinated actions between government, universities, and the private
sector can help develop such kinds of public innovation policies that
integrate these different parties’ perspectives and interests. Prior studies
have defended the need for a policy mix perspective to support RES
development [23]. In this vein, Frank et al. [1] proposed three main
innovation policy criteria that directly or indirectly may influence RES
development: Cooperation activities, local knowledge, and municipal
L.V. Lerman et al.
locational factors. The cooperation activities criterion summarizes a pol­
icy focused on the creation of a positive and cooperative environment in
the region for the implementation of RES. This policy includes providing
social participation to reduce resistance to the transition to renewable
energies and cooperation by civil society to support the RES develop­
ment [25,26] better. For instance, the promotion of a sustainable agri­
culture activity based on the cooperation between small farmers,
intermediaries, and an environment-friendly market could be a form of
creating appropriate conditions for the adoption of renewable energy, as
one more pillar of the sustainable cycle between these stakeholders.
Such cooperation can also engage these stakeholders, which may reduce
the resistance to invest in renewable energy sources. Second, an inno­
vation policy focused on the generation of local knowledge comprises,
among other aspects, the creation of in-house R&D activities, fixation of
renewable energy knowledge in the region, and the training of skilled
workers for RES development [4]. For example, local programs to train
communities on how to use or implement clean technologies for energy
generation and consumption are a kind of initiative in this type of policy.
Finally, municipal locational factors comprise structural conditions for the
development of RES, including energy consumption reduction initia­
tives and renewable energy promotion activities [27,28]. Locational
factors constitute a criterion where local communities have a more
direct possibility to participate in and contribute to their local RES
development [1]. It might be expected that all the TH actors contribute
equally to the creation and development of these three types of policy
criteria, but we aim to investigate the specific contributions by each of
these actors. As an example, tax reductions for investment in solar-
powered homes can be a form of creating municipal location factors
for RES. As empirically demonstrated by Frank et al. [1], these inno­
vation policies contribute to RES development in terms of increasing
innovation activities, adopting more renewable energies, and expanding
the presence of renewable energy promoters and companies. However,
their study did not consider how these policies are supported in the local
system, i.e., who should support the establishment of such policies.
Therefore, we complement their findings by analyzing the support of the
TH actors in the development of such policies.
3. Hypotheses development – Triple helix to support innovation
policy for RES
In this section, we present the hypotheses of our study, which are
based on the general theory of the triple helix as a model of regional
innovation [8,29]. We focus our study on how each of the TH actors’
engagement in the RES is associated with these three specific innovation
policy criteria, as represented in Fig. 1 and discussed in the following
subsections. We use the expression ’engagement’ to represent different
forms of the TH actors’ presence in the community, including the
participation of activities and initiatives or through the contribution
Fig. 1. Conceptual research model.
3
Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854
with financial and human resources for the RES development. We
consider the relationship between regional actors and adopting a policy
mix for RES development, which has been suggested by the literature as
an effective way to promote renewable energy [23]. In this sense, we
adopt Frank et al. [1] previous framework based on three main policy
criteria (cooperation, knowledge generation, and locational factors),
which has been empirically proven effective for RES development. We
analyze how these policies can be supported by the TH actors (Fig. 1), as
explained in the following subsections.
3.1. Triple helix for cooperation policies focused on RES
Regional activities need network interactions to be able to create
effective RES development [22,23]. The TH model is concerned with
such interactions and the resulting outcomes [29]. Here we point again
to the formulation of local environmental objectives and implementa­
tion plans, involving municipal policymakers, industry, financial and
further service firms, and citizens’ associations, as one important
example for such cooperation activities [30]. While the TH evolves in a
RES, we expect that this process creates a synergistic effect on innova­
tion policies towards cooperation [31,32]: The more engagement the
TH, the clearer will the innovation policies focused on cooperation ac­
tivities for RES development be. As a TH actor, the government can
create incentives for cooperation, such as special innovation funds for
university-industry cooperation or new collaborative projects among
companies [24]. The private sector can contribute by creating cooper­
ation activities within the society, such as the creation of startup
network programs focused on sustainability and green sustainable
technologies [33,34] or social programs in the community [35]. More­
over, universities can play an important cooperation role since they
create an environment for public discussion and idea generation be­
tween the RES stakeholders [31,32,36]. All these examples show the
relevant role of the TH in enhancing cooperation activities in the mu­
nicipalities regarding RES development. Although the presence of the
three actors of the TH does not assure that they will cooperate among
themselves [37], each of them can have its stand-alone contribution to
the municipality RES, providing a basis for cooperation activities that
help to boost RES in the local community [6,38,39]. Therefore, we
propose:
H1: The TH actors’ engagement in the municipality is positively associ­
ated with higher levels of cooperation policies for RES development.
3.2. Triple helix for knowledge generation policies focused on RES
The TH is a model essentially concerned with knowledge generation
for innovation [40]. Particularly, universities are very important for the
development of knowledge and technology for RES [41]. By nature,
universities and research centers assume the role of knowledge gener­
ation on renewable energy that can be disseminated within the munic­
ipal ecosystem [42]. While universities are responsible for educating
and training new professionals in skills oriented towards the use of
renewable energy, playing a key role in the RES progress and evolution
[43,44], the government acts proactively as an integrative agent be­
tween scientific and technological infrastructure and production struc­
ture. The government can establish strategic programs to incentivize
knowledge fixation or generation in a RES [45]. This can happen by
creating government agencies focused on knowledge generation and
sustainability [28] or by creating funds and incentives for research
programs on renewable energy in the municipality and the region [46].
Also, basic public education with sustainability content in the curricu­
lum can be a form of government promotion of knowledge generation
for renewable energy. Lastly, although the private sector’s main purpose
is to appropriate knowledge and transform it into market value [47], it
can also support knowledge policies for RES in some ways. Large com­
panies oriented toward RES can thus create programs for tying a labor
force to the region. For example, large international solar plant
L.V. Lerman et al.
companies have recently created programs to support the immigration
of high skilled workers to develop RES [48]. Companies can also engage
with municipalities to define market needs for professionals that will
influence labor incentives and laws [49,50] and provide training for RES
knowledge generation [51]. Furthermore, companies can develop their
R&D centers and labs for renewable energy, which allows them to
generate internal knowledge that will support a knowledge spillover to
the entire RES [52]. Based on this argument, we propose the following
hypothesis:
H2: The TH actors’ engagement in the municipality is positively associ­
ated with higher levels of local knowledge generation policies for RES
development.
3.3. Triple helix for municipal locational policies focused on RES
Municipal locational factors describe the local contextual conditions
that create an appropriate environment for RES development [1]. An
example is the availability and price level of commercial spaces for new
renewable energy plants [27], or the assignment of protected areas [19].
The local presence of the TH agents is considered as a key success
element of general innovation systems concerning local conditions [53],
and we expect the same will apply to RES development. When govern­
ment agents from different levels are involved in the development of
local innovation, they can promote not only its progress but also the
welfare of the local population, creating a virtual circle of development
[53]. Government agents can also be active in renewable energy regu­
lation and local policies for the promotion of RES, including investment
incentives, tax reductions, and the establishment of green targets [8,34].
Moreover, universities can actively contribute to the improvement of
locational factors. In recent years, many universities have been involved
in the creation of job opportunities for their graduates, and they have
leveraged the creation of university spin-offs and the development of the
entrepreneurship mindset of the students, which is a key aspect of the
local conditions for RES development [54]. Finally, in energy markets,
municipal factors such as proximity to clean electricity production and
orientation towards “green issues” in general are also related to tech­
nology innovation [47], which in developed countries mostly stems
from private initiatives [55]. The private sector can engage in renewable
energy applications to contribute to locational factors, either proactively
or reactively (as a response to public regulation) [55]. New products
based on renewable energy sources or the provision of renewable energy
technologies are initiatives that can create synergy in the local com­
munity [56]. Thus, creating a demand for more jobs in the market and
more suppliers and even creating more market opportunities regarding
renewable energies [56]. Hence, we propose the following hypothesis:
H3: The TH actors’ engagement in the municipality is positively associ­
ated with higher levels of municipal locational policies for RES development.
4. Research method
4.1. Sampling
We conducted a large-scale survey1 through a university-based
opinion research center in Germany to extract valuable information
about the development of RES in municipalities to test our hypotheses
and to provide stronger evidence [57]. The target population of this
survey comprised all municipalities of the 16 Federal States in Germany.
We identified 11,300 German municipalities from these States listed in
the Association of German Cities. We focused our study only on mu­
nicipalities with >1000 inhabitants, i.e., medium and large municipal­
ities since they have more potential for being engaged in technological
innovation for RES [40]. One of these reasons is because the initial
1
Another study with other variables from the same dataset has been pub­
lished in [ref. deleted for double-blind review]
4
Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854
development of such systems is more likely to be sited at assets with high
electricity demands [58]. Therefore, our final population is composed of
2100 medium and large municipalities from the original list of the As­
sociation of German Cities. The questionnaire was sent to the respective
representatives for urban/regional development. Because of the diffi­
culty of accessing these kinds of policymakers and because of their very
specific role in the renewable energy policy development, we adopted a
single-respondent approach, as previously done in other large-scale
innovation surveys [32,59]. The questionnaire was delivered in the
German language. The data was collected using an online survey,
coupled with telephone interviews. We obtained a total of 727 useful
responses, resulting in a response rate of 34.6%. Table 1 shows the de­
mographics of the final sample. In addition, our municipalities’ names
are coded by numbers; since we asked some sensible questions about
municipalities, we kept anonymous respondents’ identity, because re­
spondents could be intimidated to respond if they need to expose who
they are. So, we only identified the municipalities’ region. Also, when
we look for secondary data at Genesis Database (https://www-genesis.
destatis.de/genesis/online#astructure), databases available only show
the data for the region and do not discriminate to municipalities.
4.2. Measurement definition
We conducted 20 interviews to discuss our conceptual framework
and to check the viability and understandability of the research frame­
work, testing the main ideas of the constructs of our study. We used this
feedback to improve our questionnaire design. The interviewees for
these 20 interviews participated all in project workshops about the
future of renewable energies in the Danish-German border region, which
one of the authors co-organized with support of the EU INTERREG 4A
program. All these interviewees were conducted face-to-face, with a
length of 45–90 min, after the workshops in which the interviewees
participated. The 20 interviewees can be almost equally divided in four
groups: (i) majors of (usually smaller) municipalities or other relevant
municipal top executives (e.g., directors of municipal utilities) from all
major German regions, (ii) senior researchers (typical professors) from
German universities or public research institutes (e.g., Fraunhofer In­
stitutes) with a focus on engineering or economic aspects of renewable
energies, (iii) owner or top managers (managing directors, heads of R&D
departments) of larger private renewable energy providers or producers
of equipment for wind, solar and bioenergy plants in Germany, and (iv)
owners or managing directors of German private consultancy com­
panies, dealing with feasibility and planning studies in the renewable
energy area.
The main part of our questionnaire considered the three actors of the
TH model [UNIVERSITY, PRIVATE, GOVERNMENT] and three innova­
tion policy criteria [COOPERATION, KNOWLEDGE, LOCATION]. While
UNIVERSITY was measured by a double-item scale – considering the two
main types of institutions, i.e., universities and universities of applied
sciences – the other constructs that represent multi-item scales measured
the TH actors and the innovation policy criteria. Table 2 summarizes the
measurements which we collected through a literature review on TH
actors and renewable energy policies. The full questionnaire is shown in
Appendix A, in which we also provide further explanation of the German
context for a better comprehension of the questionnaire characteristics.
Questions for the [COOPERATION], [KNOWLEDGE], and [LOCA­
TION] constructs, as well as for the actors involved in the triple helix
cooperation [PRIVATE], [UNIVERSITY], and [GOVERNMENT] were
measured using a 7-point Likert scale. The TH actors were asked about
their level of engagement in the municipality regarding RES develop­
ment. In contrast, for the three innovation policy criteria, we asked
about the level of importance of each of the criteria for the municipality
activity on RES development.
We also included six control variables in our regression model based
on the contextual characteristics of the municipalities: (i) Public support
for renewable energy and acceptance of renewable energy [SUPPORT],
L.V. Lerman et al. Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854

Table 1
Demographics of the final sample.
Sample categories Classification Number of Percentage of municipalities in the Populational representation of the sample
municipalities sample distribution**

Distribution by size (number of ≤2500 136 19% 2%

inhabitants) 2500–4999 150 21% 12.7%
5000–9999 185 25% 13.8%
10,000–19,999 114 16% 12.8%
20,000–49,999 68 9% 13.6%
≥ 50,000 74 10% 38.7%

Distribution by regions East 149 20% 6.2%

North 124 17% 6%
South 314 43% 5.8%
West 141 19% 16.2%
Total (n) 727

** Note: This information was extracted from the German Federal Statistical Office [60,61]. However, we need to stress that the average municipality size in the
investigated German regions and the different federal states in Germany varies. On the one hand, in some federal states, the average municipality size significantly
increased due to local government reforms and municipality mergers (as, e.g., in North Rhine-Westphalia). On the other, in other federals states, for example,
Rhineland-Palatinate, the average municipality size is still relatively small compared to other federal states. Therefore, this column provides approximate percentages.

they need to expose who they are. Because of that, we used [FUNDS] to
Table 2 encompass public investments that the municipality receives. Therefore,
Constructs, measurement items, and references.
we believe this variable can be a proxy for municipalities’ budgets.
Construct Measurement Items References

[UNIVERSITY] Universities [8,24] 4.3. Validity and reliability of measurement

Universities of Applied Sciences
[PRIVATE] Large-scale energy suppliers
Small suppliers (crafts)
Founders/accelerators
Consulting
Private banks
[GOVERNMENT] Ministries
Regional council
Regional association
Local communities
Economic development agencies
[COOPERATION] Public and private cooperation
Cooperation of society
Visibility in the community
Social acceptance
Involvement of regional promoters
[KNOWLEDGE] Municipal knowledge on renewable energy
projects
Previous experience in municipalities with
renewable energy projects
Existence of internal R&D activities in local
renewable energy companies
Existence of universities in the region of the
municipality
Development of regional knowledge in the
agricultural and forestry sectors
[LOCATION] CO2 emission reduction
Reducing dependence on external energy
suppliers
Incentive potential investors
The incentive to entrepreneurship activities
Fostering proximity and coordination with
national operators
which comprehends the level of acceptance of political and social sup­
port [27]; (ii) proximity to suppliers of technology for renewable energy
system [SUPPLIERS], in order to consider the level of proximity between
the suppliers of renewable technologies and the municipality [69]; (iii)
municipal salary level [WAGE], in order to assess financial means that
regular citizens have to invest in basic clean technologies and reduce
energy consumption [66]; (iv) availability of labor in the municipality
[LABOR], which measurements the availability of the local labor force
to work towards the implementation of RES [66]; (v) access to R&D
infrastructure at a community level to develop renewable energy tech­
nologies [R&D]; and, finally, (vi) access to public investment in sus­
tainable projects [FUNDS] [70]. As we asked some sensible questions
about municipalities, respondents could be intimidated to respond if
[8,24,62]
To test the unidimensionality of the multiple-item measurements
[GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE, COOPERATION, KNOWLEDGE, and
LOCATION], we used a set of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in Stata
13.0® [71]. The outputs showed a good fit within all constructs.
[8,24,62]
Therefore, their unidimensionality leads to the following values (see a
summary in Table 3): COOPERATION (CFI = 0.977, RMSEA = 0.076);
KNOWLEDGE (CFI = 0.988, RMSEA = 0.072); PRIVATE (CFI = 0.999,
RMSEA = 0.031); GOVERNMENT (CFI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.072);
[4,63,64]
LOCATION (CFI = 0.988, RMSEA = 0.058). All items reported strong
[25]
[65] factor loadings on their constructs (factor loading p-value < 0.01).
[42,65,66] Furthermore, the measurement of the reliability of the constructs
[25] (Cronbach’s Alpha) exceeded the threshold of 0.7. We also evaluated the
[4] global fit of the model, and the results indicate that the proposed model
[4] has a good fit: x2(265) = 1386.26; RMSEA = 0.076; CFI = 0.862. More­
over, we assessed the discriminant validity of our model through a series
[67] of two-factor model estimations using Stata 13.0® [72]. In the first
model, we analyzed the correlation between the two constructs, and we
[68]
restricted it to unity, i.e., we placed all items of all constructs in a single
[30] construct. In the second model, we removed this restriction and calcu­
lated the quality of the fit of the original constructs. We analyzed the
[28,30]
differences between both models’ chi-square tests using an acceptance
[28]
level of p ≤ 0.05, i.e.x2 > 3.84, to consider a satisfactory discriminant
[27] validity. In Table 3, we present the correlation matrix and the chi-square
[27] values, showing that in all analyzed cases, they are valid concerning
[69]
their discriminant values. Additionally, Table 3 presents the descriptive
statistics, including means and standard deviations as well as the
skewness and kurtosis for the verification of normality of the data.
4.4. Common method variance
We used four main approaches to reduce common method variance
bias, two procedural and two statistical remedies [73]. Regarding the
procedural remedies for common method bias, we randomized the dis­
tribution of the items in the questionnaire to avoid that respondents
correlate independent and dependent variables. Second, we addressed
the questionnaire to key respondents, i.e., policymakers engaged in the
municipal development of renewable energy policy. Anonymity was also
guaranteed to the respondents so that they could respond to the ques­
tionnaire without any restriction.
Regarding the statistical remedies for common method bias, first, we

5
L.V. Lerman et al. Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854

Table 3
Descriptive, correlations, and construct validity.
Mean S.D. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

1 GOVERNMENT 4.45 1.63 –

2 PRIVATE 3.69 1.72 0.67** –
3 LOCATION 4.67 1.25 0.356** 0.425** –
4 COOPERATION 4.62 1.28 0.499** 0.523** 0.601** –
5 KNOWLEDGE 4.16 1.48 0.554** 0.58** 0.55** 0.676** –
6 UNIVERSITY 3.67 2.62 0.511** 0.63** 0.269** 0.327** 0.498** –
7 Control: SUPPORT – – 0.364** 0.414** 0.178** 0.304** 0.314** 0.281** –
8 Control: SUPPLIERS – – 0.389** 0.422** 0.217** 0.269** 0.348** 0.334** 0.669** –
9 Control: WAGE – – 0.393** 0.382** 0.136** 0.234** 0.291** 0.29** 0.668** 0.744** –
10 Control: LABOR 0.408** 0.403** 0.167** 0.257** 0.32** 0.301** 0.704** 0.74** 0.824** –
11 Control: R&D INF 0.394** 0.395** 0.174** 0.246** 0.387** 0.448** 0.58** 0.714** 0.67** 0.721** –
12 Control: FUNDS – – 0.137** 0.163** 0.174** 0.134** 0.236** 0.146** 0.181** 0.119** 0.068* 0.091** 0.188**
Mean 4.45 3.69 4.67 4.62 4.16 3.67
SD 1.63 1.72 1.25 1.28 1.48 2.62
Skewness − 1.08 -0.64 -0.89 − 1.30 -0.86 -0.31
Kurtosis 1.13 -0.21 0.92 2.60 0.75 − 1.42
Cronbach’s alpha 0.768 0.8539 0.759 0.781 0.82 0.89
Composite reliability 0.985 0.972 0.984 0.998 0.99
CFI 0.96 0.999 0.988 0.977 0.988
RMSEA 0.0072 0.031 0.058 0.076 0.072

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

used the Harman’s single factor to test if most of the variance in the
model is represented by a single factor, which may indicate potential
common method bias. The output of this test for the four constructs
(both dependent and independent) exhibited five factors, with the
highest one accounting for 36.2% of the variance, which is considered a
low variance for potential common method bias [73]. Second, we also
conducted a marker variable technique [74]. As a marker, we added a
new variable that assesses the level of inter-regional collaboration for
technology development. We checked the feasibility of this variable as a
marker by checking the correlation matrix. The results showed that the
marker variable was feasible for this test since it was not related to the
other variables, i.e., the coefficients ranged between − 0.054 and 0.073
with p > 0.05. The average of the correlation coefficients was 0.039. We
included the marker in the hypothesis test and compared the results to
those without markers. The results remained stable, and there were no
significant changes in the models tested.
Durbin and Wu-Hausman tests for the three regression models did not
show statistical inference, meaning that one cannot reject the null hy­
pothesis that treats the models as exogenous instead of endogenous:
KNOWLEDGE (Durbin = 1.664, p = 0.645; Wu-Hausman = 0.546, p =
0.651), COOPERATION (Durbin = 2.402, p = 0.493; Wu-Hausman =
0.788, p = 0.500), LOCATION (Durbin = 2.3419, p = 0.504; Wu-
Hausman = 0.769, p = 0.512). Therefore, although the instruments
could be considered strong and appropriate for an instrumented model,
this last test suggests that an OLS regression model would provide better
estimations for our research.
Furthermore, after performing the OLS regression (results are
described in Section 5), we tested the robustness of our models. In the
first step, we tested the models without the control variables, and the
results remained stable in comparison with the full model. Then, we
tested a competitive model by adding a potential mediating variable
(regional development), and the model’s results remained still stable.

5. Results
4.5. Endogeneity and robustness tests
Our hypotheses were analyzed through OLS regression. As reported
To test whether our model is subjected to endogeneity, we conducted
in Table 3, the results for skewness and kurtosis tests indicate that the
a two-stage least squares (2SLS) instrumental variable regression model
variables are distributed normally (i.e., almost all of them present values
[75]. We added six new variables as potential instrumental variables: (i)
between the thresholds of − 2.58 and 2.58 for both tests, except for co­
three variables regarding the interaction of the TH actors: university-
operation’s kurtosis, which was 2.60) [76]. Furthermore, we examined
industry cooperation; cooperation between stakeholders; and interac­
the plots of the partial regressions to evaluate both homoscedasticity
tion with other municipalities, since these variables may influence the
and collinearity assumptions. Both requirements were satisfactorily met,
TH actors’ behavior; (ii) and three variables regarding regional infra­
confirming the adequate use of OLS regression to our analysis. More­
structure that may affect the form of investments of the TH actors:
over, multicollinearity can be a potential problem for regression models
regional taxation; social engagement; and transportation systems. We
with multiple independent variables [76]. Therefore, we also submitted
performed the 2SLS regression and the complementary endogeneity
our model to a multicollinearity test, based on the variance inflator
tests using Stata 13.0. The first condition that we assessed was the val­
factor (VIF). The results indicate that our independent variables have a
idity of our instrumental variables, using Sargan’s and Basmann’s tests
VIF < 4.5, i.e., multicollinearity should not be a problem in our OLS
(Stata’s estat overid procedure), which results suggested that instruments
model.
are not statistically correlated with the error being exogenous and not
Table 4 presents the results of the OLS regression analysis. We con­
endogeneous: KNOWLEDGE: Sargan χ2 p = 0.2620, Basmann χ2 p =
ducted our analyses in two hierarchical stages. In the first stage, we
0.2674; LOCATION: Sargan χ2 p = 0.3506, Basmann χ2 p = 0.3568; and
evaluated the impact of the control variables on the dependent vari­
COOPERATION: Sargan χ2 p = 0.8102, Basmann χ2 p = 0.8141. Then,
ables2. In the second stage, we added the explanatory variables (GOV­
we tested the strength of our instruments using Stata’s first stage. The
ERNMENT, UNIVERSITY, and PRIVATE) to the model and assessed their
first-stage model demonstrated that the instruments are strong since the
impact on the three innovation policy criteria (COOPERATION,
model showed an F-value = 17.01, p < 0.01. Finally, after providing
evidence for the appropriate instrumentation of the 2SLS model, we
were able to analyze if the instrumented model provides better estima­
tion than the OLS model by considering endogeneity. We ran Stata’s 2
The first hierarchical stages were hidden in Table 5 to preserve the clarity of
estat endogenous procedure using Durbin and Wu-Hausman statistics. the several outputs, focusing only on the final stage.

6
L.V. Lerman et al. Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854

Table 4 actors are associated with each of the policy criteria studied. In a
Regression analysis results (n = 727). nutshell, we showed that the government-private sector activity might
Variables KNOWLEDGE LOCATION COOPERATION have a wide contribution to RES policy, while the university is only
focused on knowledge generation. We discuss these findings next.
GOVERNMENT 0.247*** 0.108*** 0.217***
PRIVATE 0.231*** 0.240*** 0.252*** For the creation of innovation policies focused on knowledge crea­
UNIVERSITY 0.082*** − 0.009 − 0.021 tion and transfer (KNOWLEDGE) in the RES, our findings show that all
SUPPORT − 0.014 − 0.016 0.081*** TH actors are directly associated. Universities may play a key role in the
SUPPLIERS 0.062* 0.082* 0.011 generation and transfer of knowledge about renewable energies [77]. In
WAGE − 0.072* 0.072* 0.042
contrast, the private sector may play a key role in its application and
− −
LABOR − 0.018 0.006 − 0.012
R&DINF 0.096*** − 0.021 − 0.004 replication [78,79] and the government a key role in its fixation of the
FUNDS 0.458*** 0.306*** 0.093 RES through institutional agents [3], as suggested in our hypotheses. In
F-value 64.93*** 21.12*** 38.14*** this sense, our results are aligned with the literature in which knowledge
R2 0.449 0.210 0.324 is a key factor for sustainable development because all TH actors are
Adj.R2 0.442 0.200 0.315 related to this policy criterion [80].
Change in R2 0.242*** 0.137*** 0.215*** Yet, surprisingly, UNIVERISTY was only related to KNOWLEDGE,
a
n = 727. *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01. while we did not find statistical support for its contribution to the other
RES policies. We had hypothesized that universities could create job
KNOWLEDGE, and LOCATION). We performed three independent opportunities and attract new companies focused on renewable energy,
regression models, one for each innovation policy criteria. The results which may boost locational factors. However, the effect may, again, be
showed that all three final models were statistically significant (F-value an indirect effect of the universities on the private sector rather than a
< 0.01). The final regression model for the dependent variable direct effect on locational factors. The contribution by knowledge-
KNOWLEDGE (F-value = 64.93, p = 0.000) explains 44.2% of the oriented institutions to the enhancement of private activity has been
variance, while the final regression model for LOCATION (F-value = widely demonstrated in prior research (e.g. [9]). The combination of
21.12, p = 0.000) accounts for 20% of the total variance, and COOP­ these findings with prior research about the contribution by universities
ERATION (F-value = 38.14, p = 0.000) explains 31.5% of the total to the private sector may suggest that the TH model should focus on a
variance of this model. dynamic system of mutual support between the TH actors that may
For the first innovation policy criteria, COOPERATION, the final OLS benefit the outcomes that PRIVATE has on locational factors. Still,
regression model showed a positive and significant impact of two TH regarding UNIVERSITY, we were also expecting support for COOPER­
actors: GOVERNMENT (β = 0.217, p < 0.01) and PRIVATE (β = 0.252, p ATION, but it was the only TH actor that was not associated with this
< 0.01). The results demonstrate that the presence and the active policy criterion in a statistically significant manner. Prior research has
participation of both policymakers and companies in the private sector highlighted the supporting role that universities may have in creating
are crucial for the achievement of higher levels of cooperation activities innovation ecosystems and regional innovation systems, and one of
for the development of RES, thus partially supporting hypothesis H1. For these potential supporting roles is to help with the cooperation activities
the second innovation policy criterion, KNOWLEDGE, the results sug­ because of the universities’ neutral role in the market [81]. However,
gest that all TH actors have a positive and significant impact on this when we addressed the specificities of RES development, our findings
variable: GOVERNMENT (β = 0.247, p < 0.01), PRIVATE (β = 0.231, p suggest that this is not the case. The construct, COOPERATION, con­
< 0.01) and, UNIVERSITY (β = 0.1082, p < 0.01), thus supporting hy­ siders elements ranging from a reduction of resistance in society
pothesis H2.These results indicate that all TH actors are associated with regarding renewable energy, to increased visibility of the community’s
higher development and diffusion of specialized KNOWLEDGE for the activities and to the fostering of public–private cooperation [82,83]. Our
progress and implementation of renewable energy systems. For the third data suggest that universities in German municipalities do not play this
innovation policy criteria, LOCATION, the final model showed a positive type of political role in the RES, contrary to what happens in other
and significant impact for the following TH actors: GOVERNMENT (β = countries where the universities can become a neutral actor that helps to
0.108, p = 0.000) and PRIVATE (β = 0.240, p = 0.000). Our results establish cooperation [84]. The solid democratic institutions and low
suggest that the participation by the private sector leads to a stronger corruption levels of the public–private relationship in the country of our
municipal characteristic for the local renewable energy. Hence, our sample may suggest that universities do not need to assume such a role,
model only partially supports hypothesis H3. Table 5 summarizes how but can focus on their main goal, i.e., knowledge generation and transfer
these results support our hypotheses. [85].
The distance between municipalities and universities could partially
6. Discussion explain this diminished role of the universities. Universities may be
supporting the development of local-level policies and cooperation
Our general argument that the TH model contributes to the creation policies, but the municipalities may not perceive this direct effect
of innovation policy for RES development in this German context is because the universities are not necessarily geographically in the same
supported by our findings as all TH actors were statistically associated local community. In this sense, universities can exert influence beyond
with at least one of the innovation policy criteria for RES development. their particular municipality, while the two other actors might have
Therefore, our results confirm the need for a strong engagement of the more locally-oriented boundaries, and many strong regional universities
TH actors in RES development. However, we could not confirm that all can have national influence despite their distance to a specific munici­
pality. Firm-level literature has addressed the geographical distance of
universities from companies and its effects, and some of these findings
Table 5 demonstrated that the university quality should have a strong influence
Summary of the findings supporting the proposed hypotheses. over the proximity [86]. In contrast, other studies have demonstrated
this contribution is even stronger when the university is closer to the
RES Policy
innovation target [87]. However, such studies only focus on direct
TH actors Cooperation (H1) Knowledge (H2) Location (H3) innovation outcomes. Future studies should explore more these effects
Government Yes Yes Yes on municipalities considering locational and cooperation effects, and
Private sector Yes Yes Yes more specifically, on renewable energy issues.
University Not supported Yes Not supported
Regarding the locational factors (LOCATION), when municipalities

7
L.V. Lerman et al.
present structural and natural conditions for RES transition, munici­
palities can act as micro accelerators of this change because they could
shape renewable energy policies for carbon footprint reduction consid­
ering their energy and goal priorities. Our findings supported only two
of the three actors of hypotheses associated with the cooperation ac­
tivities (COOPERATION) and location factors (LOCATION). Frank et al.
[1] suggested that LOCATION might be an indirect innovation policy,
creating conditions for RES development, but not affecting it directly.
According to our results, the government and the private sector should
be able to create such conditions for locational factors. Locational fac­
tors comprise activities such as reducing CO2 emissions, reducing
dependence on external energy suppliers, setting up incentives for po­
tential energy investors and entrepreneurship activities, and fostering
proximity to and coordination with national energy operators [78,79].
Looking at these elements, in another context, such as in developing
countries, one may expect to see a strong association of government
actors with LOCATION rather than with the private sector. In an open
energy market, the private sector also plays a key role in economic
development [90]. In this sense, creating investment opportunities and
entrepreneurship activities towards RES would be dependent on market
attractiveness for private investments [27]. Here, the GOVERNMENT
should serve as support for the establishment of the private sector that
will, in return, create the locational factors. Prior studies in the German
context have also shown that the government can act as a support to
promote local renewable projects, creating a better environment to
reinforce renewable energy activities of the private sector (in this case,
citizens participation) [91]. Other cases in Europe have also evidenced
that local organizations have an active role in promoting renewable
energy diffusion, which would be beneficial for private activity in RES
[92]. Such explanation of our results reinforces the idea that the TH
model has a direct effect on RES and is also indirectly reinforcing
mechanisms by way of the mutual support between the TH actors [81].
Our study only focused on the direct effects of the TH actors on RES
policies, while the mutual support among the TH actors has been largely
studied in prior works [93].
Regarding COOPERATION, our study shows the important twofold
role of government and the private sector to enhance cooperation. The
government, by promoting initiatives and the private sector by focusing
on open innovation and collaboration to foster technological develop­
ment for RES in the municipality. However, our study has an important
limitation on the contribution of cooperation activities. Prior research
on renewable energy in Germany has shown that an important compo­
nent of cooperation activities in this context is the presence of energy
cooperatives, which have been important for the German energy tran­
sition [94]. As reported by Yildiz et al. [94], these institutions provide
opportunities for social participation and acceptance of energy projects.
In this sense, it is important to highlight the limitation of the TH model
to capture such kind of social engagement. Although we included some
of these effects in the private activity indirectly, this bottom-up
engagement is an additional pillar to the TH actors, which deserves
future consideration when analyzing cooperation activities. The study of
Yildiz et al. [94] also shows that these types of institutions witnesses also
more social conflicts, which can be negative for cooperation activities if
not well managed. In contrast, private companies could operate more
vertically and promote cooperation while being out of the direct social
engagement [94].
7. Conclusions
As a main theoretical contribution of this paper, we provide empir­
ical evidence of the relevance of the TH model in support of the devel­
opment of RES at the municipal level. We also show that while the
government and private sectors act systemically, supporting the three
policy criteria, the university has only shreds of evidence of association
to knowledge generation. Furthermore, we show that the private sector
performs an important role in the creation of all three types of
8
Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854
innovation policy for RES, while the universities only seem to contribute
to policies related to knowledge generation and transfer. In this sense,
our results help to create new hypotheses: in the context of economically
developed countries such as Germany, universities tend to be restricted
to their knowledge role and have less influence on economic policy
mechanisms such as those related to cooperative private–public systems
and locational factors. In this type of an economically developed
context, the private sector is the driver of RES development. Moreover,
our findings show that the government has an important role in the
creation of knowledge and cooperation policies, but we could not find
evidence of its contribution to locational factors. The government can
support the regional economy, but the private sector is the key driver of
RES development in the municipalities.
The main outcome is that the private sector plays an important role
for all the innovation policy criteria (cooperation, knowledge, and
municipal locational factors), but also all TH actors influence knowledge
criteria. Therefore, one hand, when policymakers create energy policies
that focus on knowledge (knowledge transfer, for example), they could
involve all TH actors to help them to develop but also to implement
these policies. On the other hand, policymakers could engage the private
sector and the political actors on cooperation activities to boost energy
policy achievements, so their impact could be disseminated. Taking
these examples, when policymakers are focusing on developing some
aspects of their local area, they could look for energy promoters from the
private sector to understand the pro and cons of working in the
renewable energy field in their municipality. So, conducting formal or
informal conversations or interviews, policymakers could delimitate
better their policy approach to achieve the municipality energy goal.
7.1. Practical implications
Policymakers can use our findings as a basis for their decisions on
how to promote RES in local economies. The consolidation of the TH
model in local economies has been shown in this paper to be a central
element in the consolidation of policy criteria focused on RES devel­
opment. Firstly, policymakers should thus focus their attention on the
consolidation of the TH model rather than on the creation of the inno­
vation policy criteria, since each of the actors will be an important
promoter of the consolidation of effective innovation policy criteria for
RES development.
This first conclusion has important practical, political as well as
managerial and university-related, implications for all three groups of
TH actors. To start with the practical and political implications,
municipal policymakers should actively support different kinds of
public–private and public-public cooperation. Here we just mention one
of the most widespread examples, which are currently already practiced
in German municipalities and discussed in the literature (e.g., [95]. In
the last years, public–private local “climate pacts” have come into ex­
istence in various German municipalities of different size classes (e.g., in
Berlin, Munich, Stuttgart). These initiatives, which are often organized
as registered associations, usually have a wide range of different orga­
nizations, like, e.g., private companies, municipal utilities, local uni­
versities, and civil society organizations. On the one hand, they act as
strategic political discourse platforms. On the other hand, partly, they
are also involved in practical project activities, for example, projects
supported by the EU and/or state or federal programs.
Based on the findings of our empirical study, municipal policymakers
should foster specific innovation initiatives in such public–private
climate pacts and similar forms of cooperation. Such innovation initia­
tives can, for example, refer to potential analyses or feasibility studies
for new renewable energy plants or prototypes and demonstration
projects for innovative renewable energy technologies. From a mana­
gerial perspective, private companies should use public–private dia­
logue platforms like, e.g., local “climate pacts” as networks for
identifying and testing new ideas for product, process, and business
model innovations in the field of renewable energies. Finally,
L.V. Lerman et al.
universities should also follow such a network strategy, but with their
institutional focus on research, teaching, and knowledge transfer.
A further important practical implication of our study results is that
municipal policymakers, private companies, and universities should
jointly identify, formulate, and implement specific TH projects. In a
European context, e.g., the current EU framework program Horizon
2020 explicitly required such municipal and regional TH and innovation
cooperation in sub-programs like “Responsible Research and Innovation
(RRI)” [96].
Secondly, policymakers may be representative of each of the three
TH actors. Depending on which one they are representing, they will have
to focus on specific types of innovation policy criteria, as suggested in
our findings. While we only studied the TH actors’ direct contribution to
the creation of innovation policies for RES, we assumed nonetheless that
the TH actors support each other. This means that policymakers should
maintain their twofold focus areas, one on supporting the other com­
plementary TH actors and another one on supporting the innovation
policy criteria presented in our results.
7.2. Limitations and future research
Although we applied the classic TH model, there has been some
progress on extensions of it where other actors are included, such as the
civil society and the environment [97]. A deployment and extension of
their specific contribution might open new avenues of research. More­
over, the TH model has intrinsic limitations since it considers only the
type of actors and their roles from a very broad (and sometimes
ambiguous) perspective, while it does not capture the mechanism of
action of these actors, such as the knowledge flows considered in the
open innovation model, or how each of the actors create value in the
ecosystem, for example, Villarreal and Calvo [21]. Therefore, new
studies may investigate more complex relationship mechanisms using
other theoretical models as a research framework for energy systems.
Another limitation is that our study is a cross-sectional survey, so data
were collected at a single point in time; we could not assess the evolution
of RES policy, but only take a picture of the period. In addition, it is
related to [98], regarding theme six about temporal and longitudinal
studies, because many studies on energy and climate change look at how
energy policy is changing over time. Moreover, the TH actors can also
support each other and create a virtuous cycle in the innovation system,
but our methodological approach is unable to take these synergistic
effects. Future studies can advance in this direction by using other ap­
proaches such as system dynamics.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
We carried out this study partly within INTERREG 4A program
“Southern Denmark-Schleswig-K.E.R.N.”, funded by the European
Union’s European Regional Development Fund (ERDF). In addition, the
Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Develop­
ment (CNPq) and the Brazilian Federal Ministry of Education (CAPES)
financially supported three of the researchers involved in this study.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.erss.2020.101854.
9
Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854
References
[1] A.G. Frank, W. Gerstlberger, C.A. Paslauski, L.V. Lerman, N.F. Ayala, The
contribution of innovation policy criteria to the development of local renewable
energy systems, Energy Policy 115 (2018) 353–365, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2018.01.036.
[2] A. Lema, K. Ruby, Between fragmented authoritarianism and policy coordination:
creating a Chinese market for wind energy, Energy Policy 35 (7) (2007)
3879–3890.
[3] Y. Cai, Y. Aoyama, Fragmented authorities, institutional misalignments, and
challenges to renewable energy transition: a case study of wind power curtailment
in China, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 41 (2018) 71–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2018.04.021.
[4] P. Alberg Østergaard, B.V. Mathiesen, B. Möller, H. Lund, A renewable energy
scenario for Aalborg Municipality based on low-temperature geothermal heat,
wind power and biomass, Energy 35 (12) (2010) 4892–4901, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2010.08.041.
[5] A. Kostevšek, J.J. Klemeš, P.S. Varbanov, L. Čuček, J. Petek, Sustainability
assessment of the Locally Integrated Energy Sectors for a Slovenian municipality,
J. Clean. Prod. 88 (2015) 83–89.
[6] S. Amiri, G. Weinberger, Increased cogeneration of renewable electricity through
energy cooperation in a Swedish district heating system - a case study, Renewable
Energy 116 (2018) 866–877, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2017.10.003.
[7] L. Saganeiti, A. Pilogallo, G. Faruolo, F. Scorza, B. Murgante, Territorial
fragmentation and renewable energy source plants: which relationship?
Sustainability 12 (2020) 1828.
[8] H. Etzkowitz, L. Leydesdorff, The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems
and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university – industry – government relations, Res.
Policy (2000) 109–123.
[9] M. Perkmann, V. Tartari, M. McKelvey, E. Autio, A. Broström, P. D’Este, R. Fini,
A. Geuna, R. Grimaldi, A. Hughes, Academic engagement and commercialisation: a
review of the literature on university–industry relations, Res. Policy. 42 (2013)
423–442.
[10] Ø. Strand, L. Leydesdorff, Technological Forecasting & Social Change Where is
synergy indicated in the Norwegian innovation system ? Triple-Helix relations
among technology, organization, and geography, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change.
80 (2013) 471–484, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.08.010.
[11] M. Greene, F. Fahy, Steering demand? Exploring the intersection of policy, practice
and lives in energy systems change in Ireland, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 61 (2020)
101331, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2019.101331.
[12] H. Etzkowitz, J. Dzisah, H. Etzkowitz, J. Dzisah, Rethinking development :
circulation in the triple helix Rethinking development : circulation, 7325 (2008).
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537320802426309.
[13] A. Klitkou, H. Godoe, The Norwegian PV manufacturing industry in a Triple Helix
perspective, Energy Policy 61 (2013) 1586–1594, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2013.06.032.
[14] M. Deakin, A. Reid, Smart cities: Under-gridding the sustainability of city-districts
as energy efficient-low carbon zones, J. Clean. Prod. 173 (2018) 39–48, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.12.054.
[15] S. Hettinga, P. Nijkamp, H. Scholten, A multi-stakeholder decision support system
for local neighbourhood energy planning, Energy Policy 116 (2018) 277–288,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.02.015.
[16] I.A. Ivanova, L. Leydesdorff, Rotational symmetry and the transformation of
innovation systems in a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations,
Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 86 (2014) 143–156, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2013.08.022.
[17] O. Renn, J.P. Marshall, Coal, nuclear and renewable energy policies in Germany:
From the to the “Energiewende”, Energy Policy. 99 (2016) (1950) 224–232.
[18] C. Pollitt, Politics, Administration and Performance: A continuing search, but no
one best way? (2012).
[19] T. Lauf, K. Ek, E. Gawel, P. Lehmann, P. Söderholm, The regional heterogeneity of
wind power deployment: an empirical investigation of land-use policies in
Germany and Sweden, J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 63 (4) (2020) 751–778, https://
doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2019.1613221.
[20] P. Eckersley, Cities and climate change: How historical legacies shape policy-
making in English and German municipalities, Politics. 37 (2017) 151–166.
[21] O. Villarreal, N. Calvo, From the Triple Helix model to the Global Open Innovation
model: a case study based on international cooperation for innovation in
Dominican Republic, J. Eng. Technol. Manage. 35 (2015) 71–92.
[22] D. Newell, A. Sandström, P. Söderholm, Network management and renewable
energy development: an analytical framework with empirical illustrations, Energy
Res. Soc. Sci. 23 (2017) 199–210, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2016.09.005.
[23] P. Söderholm, H. Hellsmark, J. Frishammar, J. Hansson, J. Mossberg,
A. Sandström, Technological development for sustainability: the role of network
management in the innovation policy mix, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 138
(2019) 309–323.
[24] H. Etzkowitz, Innovation in innovation: the triple helix of university-industry-
government relations, Soc. Sci. Inf. 42 (3) (2003) 293–337.
[25] W. Gerstlberger, Regional innovation systems and sustainability—selected
examples of international discussion, Technovation 24 (9) (2004) 749–758,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4972(02)00152-9.
[26] P.H. Pattberg, F. Biermann, S. Chan, A. Mert, Public-Private Partnerships for
Sustainable Development: Emergence, Influence and Legitimacy, Edward Elgar
Publishing, 2012.
[27] M.J. Bürer, R. Wüstenhagen, Which renewable energy policy is a venture
capitalist’s best friend? Empirical evidence from a survey of international
L.V. Lerman et al.
cleantech investors, Energy Policy 37 (12) (2009) 4997–5006, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enpol.2009.06.071.
[28] H. Lund, B.V. Mathiesen, Energy system analysis of 100% renewable energy
systems—the case of Denmark in years 2030 and 2050, Energy 34 (5) (2009)
524–531, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2008.04.003.
[29] H. Etzkowitz, C. Zhou, The Triple Helix: University–Industry–Government
Innovation and Entrepreneurship, Routledge, 2017.
[30] G. Keijzers, The evolution of Dutch environmental policy : the changing ecological
arena from 1970–2000 and beyond, J. Clean. Prod. 8 (2000) 179–200, https://doi.
org/10.1016/S0959-6526(00)00003-2.
[31] M. Guerrero, D. Urbano, The impact of Triple Helix agents on entrepreneurial
innovations’ performance: an inside look at enterprises located in an emerging
economy, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 119 (2017) 294–309, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.techfore.2016.06.015.
[32] A. Mascarenhas, P. Coelho, E. Subtil, T.B. Ramos, The role of common local
indicators in regional sustainability assessment, Ecol. Indic. 10 (3) (2010)
646–656, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2009.11.003.
[33] O. Bărbulescu, C.P. Constantin, Sustainable growth approaches: quadruple helix
approach for turning Brașov into a startup city, Sustainability 11 (2019) 6154,
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11216154.
[34] Al. Brem, A. Radziwon, Efficient Triple Helix collaboration fostering local niche
innovation projects – a case from Denmark, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 123
(2017) 130–141, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.002.
[35] S.A. Alzyoud, K. Bani-Hani, Social responsibility in higher education institutions:
application case from the Middle East, Euro. Sci. J. 11 (2015).
[36] F. Chen, C. Wu, W. Yang, A new approach for the cooperation between academia
and industry: an empirical analysis of the triple Helix in East China, Sci. Technol.
Soc. 21 (2) (2016) 181–204, https://doi.org/10.1177/0971721816640617.
[37] Y.H. Lee, Y. Kim, Analyzing interaction in R&D networks using the Triple Helix
method: evidence from industrial R&D programs in Korean government, Technol.
Forecast. Soc. Change 110 (2016) 93–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
techfore.2015.10.017.
[38] K. Rahbar, C.C. Chai, R. Zhang, Energy cooperation optimization in microgrids
with renewable energy integration, IEEE Trans. Smart Grid 9 (2) (2018)
1482–1493, https://doi.org/10.1109/TSG.2016.2600863.
[39] E. Taibi, G. Gualberti, M. Bazilian, D. Gielen, A framework for technology
cooperation to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy in Pacific Island
Countries, Energy Policy 98 (2016) 778–790, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2016.03.009.
[40] M. Ranga, H. Etzkowitz, Triple Helix Systems: An Analytical Framework for
Innovation Policy and Practice in the Knowledge Society, Ind. Higher Educ. 27 (4)
(2013) 237–262, https://doi.org/10.5367/ihe.2013.0165.
[41] F.J.W. Osseweijer, L.B.P. van den Hurk, E.J.H.M. Teunissen, W.G.J.H.M. van Sark,
A comparative review of building integrated photovoltaics ecosystems in selected
European countries, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 90 (2018) 1027–1040,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2018.03.001.
[42] A. Mallett, Social acceptance of renewable energy innovations: the role of
technology cooperation in urban Mexico, Energy Policy 35 (5) (2007) 2790–2798,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2006.12.008.
[43] A. Assali, T. Khatib, A. Najjar, Renewable energy awareness among future
generation of Palestine, Renewable Energy 136 (2019) 254–263, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.renene.2019.01.007.
[44] M. Qu, P. Ahponen, L. Tahvanainen, D. Gritten, B. Mola-Yudego, P. Pelkonen,
Chinese university students’ knowledge and attitudes regarding forest bio-energy,
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 15 (8) (2011) 3649–3657, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2011.07.002.
[45] S.I. Mustapa, Leong Yow Peng, A.H. Hashim, Issues and challenges of renewable
energy development: A Malaysian experience, in: Proceedings of the International
Conference on Energy and Sustainable Development: Issues and Strategies (ESD
2010), IEEE, Chiang Mai, 2010, pp. 1–6, https://doi.org/10.1109/
ESD.2010.5598779.
[46] P.D. Lund, Effects of energy policies on industry expansion in renewable energy,
Renewable Energy 34 (1) (2009) 53–64, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2008.03.018.
[47] J. Horbach, C. Rammer, Energy transition in Germany and regional spill-overs: the
diffusion of renewable energy in firms, Energy Policy 121 (2018) 404–414, https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2018.06.042.
[48] N. Luke, C. Zabin, D. Velasco, R. Collier, Diversity in California’s Clean Energy
Workforce: Access to Jobs for Disadvantaged Workers in Renewable Energy
Construction, Center for Labor Research and Education, Green Economy Program,
Berkeley, 2017.
[49] U. Lehr, J. Nitsch, M. Kratzat, C. Lutz, D. Edler, Renewable energy and employment
in Germany, Energy Policy 36 (1) (2008) 108–117.
[50] Y. Mu, W. Cai, S. Evans, C. Wang, D. Roland-Holst, Employment impacts of
renewable energy policies in China: a decomposition analysis based on a CGE
modeling framework, Appl. Energy 210 (2018) 256–267, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.apenergy.2017.10.086.
[51] J. Noailly, V. Shestalova, Knowledge spillovers from renewable energy
technologies: Lessons from patent citations, Environ. Innov. Societal Transitions 22
(2017) 1–14, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2016.07.004.
[52] L. Leydesdorff, M. Deakin, The triple-helix model of smart cities: a neo-
evolutionary perspective, J. Urban Technol. 18 (2) (2011) 53–63.
[53] L. Leydesdorff, H. Etzkowitz, studies, 25 (1998) 195–203.
[54] U. Cantner, H. Graf, J. Herrmann, M. Kalthaus, Inventor networks in renewable
energies: the influence of the policy mix in Germany, Res. Policy 45 (6) (2016)
1165–1184, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.005.
10
Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854
[55] Moana Simas, Sergio Pacca, Assessing employment in renewable energy
technologies: a case study for wind power in Brazil, Renewable Sustainable Energy
Rev. 31 (2014) 83–90.
[56] C.L. Rösler Nicole; Schormüller, Kathrin, Kommunaler Klimaschutz, erneuerbare
Energien und Klimawandel in Kommunen. Ergebnisse einer Difu-Umfrage.,
Deutschland, (2013). <https://repository.difu.de/jspui/handle/difu/210670>
(accessed May 21, 2020).
[57] B.K. Sovacool, J. Axsen, S. Sorrell, Promoting novelty, rigor, and style in energy
social science: towards codes of practice for appropriate methods and research
design, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 12–42, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
erss.2018.07.007.
[58] K. Adam, V. Hoolohan, J. Gooding, T. Knowland, C.S. Bale, A.S. Tomlin,
Methodologies for city-scale assessment of renewable energy generation potential
to inform strategic energy infrastructure investment, Cities 54 (2016) 45–56.
[59] P. Buschmann, P. Moser, S. Roth, K. Schenk, 100ee-Regionen in Deutschland,
Europa und der Welt, (2014).
[60] German Federal Statistical Office, Gemeinden nach Bundesländern und
Einwohnergrößenklassen am 31.12.2019, (2020). <https://www.destatis.de/DE/
Themen/Laender-Regionen/Regionales/Gemeindeverzeichnis/Administrativ/08-
gemeinden-einwohner-groessen.html>.
[61] German Federal Statistical Office, Anzahl der Gemeinden in Deutschland nach
Gemeindegrößenklassen, 2018. <https://de.statista.co
m/statistik/daten/studie/1254/umfrage/anzahl-der-gemeinden-in-deutsch
land-nach-gemeindegroessenklassen/#professional>.
[62] M. Stevanov, S.K. Ostoić, D. Vuletić, S. Orlović, Consultation process on forest
biomass and sustainable forest management: how knowledge mobilization in the
cross-border region of Croatia and Serbia worked? Period. Biol. 115 (2013)
435–445.
[63] F. Kern, A. Smith, Restructuring energy systems for sustainability? Energy
transition policy in the Netherlands, Energy Policy 36 (11) (2008) 4093–4103,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2008.06.018.
[64] A.C. Martins, R.C. Marques, C.O. Cruz, Public–private partnerships for wind power
generation: the Portuguese case, Energy Policy 39 (1) (2011) 94–104, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.017.
[65] R. Wüstenhagen, M. Bilharz, Green energy market development in Germany:
effective public policy and emerging customer demand, Energy Policy 34 (13)
(2006) 1681–1696, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2004.07.013.
[66] J. Dooley, Unintended consequences: energy R&D in a deregulated energy market,
Energy Policy. 26 (1998) 547–555, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(97)
00166-3.
[67] G.P. Trencher, M. Yarime, A. Kharrazi, Co-creating sustainability: cross-sector
university collaborations for driving sustainable urban transformations, J. Cleaner
Prod. 50 (2013) 40–55, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.11.047.
[68] A. Angelis-Dimakis, M. Biberacher, J. Dominguez, G. Fiorese, S. Gadocha,
E. Gnansounou, G. Guariso, A. Kartalidis, L. Panichelli, I. Pinedo, M. Robba,
Methods and tools to evaluate the availability of renewable energy sources,
Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 15 (2) (2011) 1182–1200, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.049.
[69] V. De Marchi, Environmental innovation and R & D cooperation : empirical
evidence from Spanish manufacturing firms, Res. Policy. 41 (2012) 614–623,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.10.002.
[70] S. Jacobsson, V. Lauber, The politics and policy of energy system
transformation—explaining the German diffusion of renewable energy technology,
Energy Policy 34 (3) (2006) 256–276, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enpol.2004.08.029.
[71] K.G. Jöreskog, D. Sörbom, LISREL 8: Structural Equation Modeling with the
SIMPLIS Command Language, Scientific Software International, 1993.
[72] A.E. Akgu, H. Keskin, J.C. Byrne, S. Aren, Emotional and learning capability and
their impact on product innovativeness and firm performance, Technovation 27 (9)
(2007) 501–513, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2007.03.001.
[73] P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. Mackenzie, J. Lee, N.P. Podsakoff, Common method biases in
behavioral research : a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies,
J. Appl. Psychol. 88 (2003) 879–903, https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
9010.88.5.879.
[74] P.M. Podsakoff, S.B. MacKenzie, N.P. Podsakoff, Sources of method bias in social
science research and recommendations on how to control it, Annu. Rev. Psychol.
63 (1) (2012) 539–569.
[75] G. Bascle, Controlling for endogeneity with instrumental variables in strategic
management research, Strat. Org. 6 (3) (2008) 285–327.
[76] J.F. Hair, W.C. Black, B.J. Babin, R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham, Análise multivariada
de dados, Bookman editora, 2009.
[77] J.O. Jaber, W. Awad, T.A. Rahmeh, A.A. Alawin, S. Al-Lubani, S.A. Dalu,
A. Dalabih, A. Al-Bashir, Renewable energy education in faculties of engineering in
Jordan: Relationship between demographics and level of knowledge of senior
students’, Renewable Sustainable Energy Rev. 73 (2017) 452–459, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2017.01.141.
[78] A.H.I. Lee, H.H. Chen, S. Chen, Suitable organization forms for knowledge
management to attain sustainable competitive advantage in the renewable energy
industry, Energy 89 (2015) 1057–1064, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2015.06.047.
[79] A. Masini, E. Menichetti, Investment decisions in the renewable energy sector: An
analysis of non-financial drivers, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 80 (3) (2013)
510–524, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2012.08.003.
[80] E.G. Carayannis, T.D. Barth, D.F. Campbell, The Quintuple Helix innovation model:
global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation, J. Innov.
Entrepreneurship 1 (1) (2012) 2, https://doi.org/10.1186/2192-5372-1-2.
L.V. Lerman et al.
[81] H.L. Smith, S. Bagchi-Sen, The research university, entrepreneurship and regional
development: research propositions and current evidence, Entrepreneurship Reg.
Dev. 24 (5-6) (2012) 383–404.
[82] A. Bergek, S. Jacobsson, B. Carlsson, S. Lindmark, A. Rickne, Analyzing the
functional dynamics of technological innovation systems: a scheme of analysis,
Res. Policy 37 (3) (2008) 407–429, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2007.12.003.
[83] Prognos, Prognos Zukunftsatlas 2010 – Deutschlands Regionen im
Zukunftswettbewerb [WWW Document, (2010). <https://www.prognos.com/pu
blikationen/zukunftsatlas-r-regionen/zukunftsatlas-r-2010/>.
[84] Philip Jennings, New directions in renewable energy education, Renewable Energy
34 (2) (2009) 435–439, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2008.05.005.
[85] Y. Liu, Q. Huang, University capability as a micro-foundation for the Triple Helix
model: the case of China, Technovation 76-77 (2018) 40–50, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.technovation.2018.02.013.
[86] K. Laursen, T. Reichstein, A. Salter, Exploring the effect of geographical proximity
and university quality on university–industry collaboration in the United Kingdom,
Reg. Stud. 45 (4) (2011) 507–523.
[87] Del Barrio-Castro, Tomás; García-Quevedo, José, Effects of university research on
the geography of innovation, (n.d.) <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/10
.1080/00343400500389992> (accessed September 15, 2020).
[90] Y. Sheng, X. Shi, D. Zhang, Economic development, energy market integration and
energy demand: Implications for East Asia, Energy Strategy Rev. 2 (2) (2013)
146–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2012.12.011.
[91] B.J. Kalkbrenner, J. Roosen, Citizens’ willingness to participate in local renewable
energy projects: the role of community and trust in Germany, Energy Res. Soc. Sci.
13 (2016) 60–70, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2015.12.006.
[92] A. Palm, Local factors driving the diffusion of solar photovoltaics in Sweden: a case
study of five municipalities in an early market, Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 14 (2016)
1–12.
[93] D. Sarpong, A. AbdRazak, E. Alexander, D. Meissner, Organizing practices of
university, industry and government that facilitate (or impede) the transition to a
hybrid triple helix model of innovation, Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 123 (2017)
142–152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.032.
[94] Ö. Yildiz, J. Rommel, S. Debor, L. Holstenkamp, F. Mey, J.R. Müller, J. Radtke,
J. Rognli, Renewable energy cooperatives as gatekeepers or facilitators? Recent
developments in Germany and a multidisciplinary research agenda, Energy Res.
Soc. Sci. 6 (2015) 59–73.
[95] K. Zimmermann, Local climate policies in Germany. Challenges of governance and
knowledge, Cogent Soc. Sci.. 4 (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/
23311886.2018.1482985.
[96] European Commission, Indicators for promoting and monitoring Responsible
Research and Innovation Report from the Expert Group on Policy Indicators for
Responsible Research and Innovation, (2015). <https://ec.europa.eu/research
/swafs/pdf/pub_rri/rri_indicators_final_version.pdf#view=fit&pagemode=none>.
[97] E.G. Carayannis, E. Grigoroudis, D.F.J. Campbell, D. Meissner, D. Stamati, The
ecosystem as helix : an exploratory theory-building study of regional co-opetitive
11
Energy Research & Social Science 71 (2021) 101854
entrepreneurial ecosystems as Quadruple / Quintuple Helix Innovation Models,
(2017). https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12300.
[98] J. Goodman, J.P. Marshall, Problems of methodology and method in climate and
energy research: Socialising climate change? Energy Res. Soc. Sci. 45 (2018) 1–11,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erss.2018.08.010.
Laura Visintainer Lerman, M.S. is a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Industrial En­
gineering of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) – Brazil, and a researcher
of the of the Organizational Engineering Group (NEO – Núcleo de Engenharia Organ­
izacional) at the same university. She holds a M.S. in Industrial Engineering from UFRGS
and a B.S. in Business Administration from the Pontifical Catholic University of Rio Grande
do Sul (PUCRS). Her main research interests comprise innovation and technology man­
agement in the context of renewable energy systems.
Wolfgang Gerstlberger, Ph.D. is a Professor for Operations Management at the Department
of Business Administration, School of Business and Governance, Tallinn University of
Technology (TalTech), Estonia. He has a Ph.D. and Master’s degree in Social Sciences as
well as a Habilitation in Business Administration from Kassel University, Germany. Before
he joined TalTech, he was an Associate Professor at the University of Southern Denmark,
Denmark. Before he also held an Endowed Chair for Innovation Management and Small
Business Research at the International Graduate School Zittau which is a department of
Technical University Dresden, Germany. His main research interests include strategic
management, operations and innovation management and sustainability.
Mateus José do Rêgo Ferreira Lima, Ms. is a Ph.D. candidate in Management Sciences (with
focus in Operations Management) at Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University,
Columbus, Ohio, United States. He earned a masteŕs degree in Industrial Engineering from
the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, and bachelor’s degree in Industrial
Engineering from Maranhão State University, Brazil, with exchange term at Milwaukee
School of Engineering, United States. His research has been focused on operations man­
agement and industrial innovation performance.
Alejandro G. Frank, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor at the Department of Industrial Engi­
neering of the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) and a Research Affiliate at
the MIT Industrial Performance Center. At UFRGS, he is the Director of the Organizational
Engineering Group. He received Ph.D. (2013) and M.Eng. (2009) degrees in Industrial
Engineering from UFRGS, Brazil, and a B.Eng. degree in Industrial Engineering (2007)
from the National University of Misiones (UNaM), Argentina. He has been a visiting
scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA), and at Politecnico di Milano
(Italy). His research is devoted to the interface between operations and technology man­
agement, with emphasis on digital transformation, Industry 4.0, and new business models
in manufacturing firms.