Overview of the study's contributions
| Area of literature | Focus in existing studies | Contribution of this study |
|---|---|---|
| Publicly funded innovation networks (PFINs) | PFINs are primarily examined as established policy instruments supporting innovation and collaboration outcomes (Kreye and Perunovic, 2019, 2020; Rubach et al., 2017) | Shifts attention to the early-stage formation of PFINs, demonstrating that network effectiveness is shaped by design choices and actor needs identified before formal implementation |
| Sustainability transitions | Sustainability transitions are conceptualised as systemic and multi-actor processes, often analysed at meso or macro levels (Köhler et al., 2019; Farla et al., 2012) | Extends this literature by integrating a micro–meso perspective, linking organisational capabilities with network-level dynamics in early transition phases |
| Actor needs and network design | Limited consideration of bottom-up identification of participant needs in publicly funded initiatives (França et al., 2022; Eklinder-Frick and Åge, 2017) | Introduces a bottom-up approach to identifying emerging actor needs, highlighting its relevance for prioritising interventions and improving policy effectiveness |
| Organisational capabilities for sustainability | Emphasis on firms' reliance on external networks to overcome sustainability-related knowledge gaps (Hariyani and Mishra, 2022; Söderholm et al., 2019) | Highlights the importance of internal capability building, including skills development, targeted training, and talent attraction, as a prerequisite for effective participation in PFINs |
| Path dependence and innovation | Path dependence is recognised as a barrier to sustainability transitions (Ritter and Pedersen, 2020) | Shows how PFINs can help balance traditional expertise and openness to new paradigms through targeted training and networking, mitigating path-dependent dynamics |
| Ecosystem relationships | Networks are viewed mainly as coordination mechanisms among firms and institutions (Möller et al., 2005) | Conceptualises PFINs as arenas for alignment among firms, users, policymakers, and regional stakeholders, emphasising multi-level and relational dynamics |
| Territorial and governance perspectives | Limited attention to the geographical and territorial dimensions of PFIN governance (Marullo et al., 2024) | Demonstrates the importance of geographical proximity and localised decision-making for tailoring sustainability and innovation strategies to regional contexts |
| Methodological approaches | Lack of insights on methodological approaches to be considered in designing PFIN | Establishes focus groups as a valuable qualitative method for exploring early-stage PFINs and facilitating shared understanding among potential participants |
| Area of literature | Focus in existing studies | |
|---|---|---|
| Publicly funded innovation networks ( | Shifts attention to the early-stage formation of | |
| Sustainability transitions | Sustainability transitions are conceptualised as systemic and multi-actor processes, often analysed at meso or macro levels ( | Extends this literature by integrating a micro–meso perspective, linking organisational capabilities with network-level dynamics in early transition phases |
| Actor needs and network design | Limited consideration of bottom-up identification of participant needs in publicly funded initiatives ( | Introduces a bottom-up approach to identifying emerging actor needs, highlighting its relevance for prioritising interventions and improving policy effectiveness |
| Organisational capabilities for sustainability | Emphasis on firms' reliance on external networks to overcome sustainability-related knowledge gaps ( | Highlights the importance of internal capability building, including skills development, targeted training, and talent attraction, as a prerequisite for effective participation in |
| Path dependence and innovation | Path dependence is recognised as a barrier to sustainability transitions ( | Shows how |
| Ecosystem relationships | Networks are viewed mainly as coordination mechanisms among firms and institutions ( | Conceptualises |
| Territorial and governance perspectives | Limited attention to the geographical and territorial dimensions of | Demonstrates the importance of geographical proximity and localised decision-making for tailoring sustainability and innovation strategies to regional contexts |
| Methodological approaches | Lack of insights on methodological approaches to be considered in designing | Establishes focus groups as a valuable qualitative method for exploring early-stage |
Sharing content requires targeting cookies to be enabled. Please update your cookie preferences to use this feature.