Inbound and Outbound Practices of Open Innovation and Eco-Innovation: Contrasting Bioeconomy and Non-Bioeconomy Firms

Comment No.

Page

No.

Section

Reviewer 1: Comments

Amendments

Rev.1_1

   1

Abstract

C1: The abstract is too short and could be more informative. 

C2: In the abstract, acronyms are not normally used nor do they explain acronyms. 

C3: The numbering of tables must be revised. The first table has the number 2 instead of 1. The table with the number 1 appears only in the appendix. 

C4: In the section of the references lack the square brackets in the numbers of references.

A1: Considering the reviewer’s comment, which we acknowledge, the following sentences were added in the abstract (page 1):

Generating innovation with environmental impact is crucial for firms to achieve sustainable eco-innovative performance. In the reference literature on open innovation, gaps still persist at the level of scarce and limited knowledge on the use of knowledge sources and flows, for the purpose of strengthening the eco-innovative performance of the Bioeconomy sector. To address these caveats, …

The contribution provided is two-fold: (i) in theoretical terms, is extended an operational model of open innovation inbound and outbound practices, crossing financial flows and innovation directions; and (ii) in empirical terms, brings new light to the still limited knowledge about the positive and significant effect of open innovation outbound practices on the eco-innovative performance of companies belonging to a strategic sector, worldwide, that is, the Bioeconomy sector, which has a renewed strategic importance in the face of global climate change.

A2: Considering the reviewer’s comment, which we acknowledge the acronyms were removed from the abstract.

A3: Considering the reviewer’s comment, which we acknowledge, the sequential numbering of tables was revised. 

A4: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment. Nevertheless, we are using the Microsoft word template available in the Instructions for Authors at the web site of the Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity and it is not required the use of square brackets for numbering the references.

For example, what is indicated is that as references they are listed as follows:

1.       Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

2.       Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, 2007; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.

Comment No.

Page

No.

Section

Reviewer 2: Comments

Amendments

Rev.2_1

C1: It is an excellent paper but the sample for 2010. I think that there is new data for 2019 on the website of union European (EU).

A1: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and limitation pointed out. The empirical approach was developed using data collected from CIS 2010 and, as stated in section 6, this is identified as one of the limitations of the current analysis. Although we have already applied for requesting institutional access to the latest version of CIS 2018 until now it was not possible to have access to the data of the 6 EU countries under analysis.

Comment No.

Page

No.

Section

Reviewer 3: Comments

Amendments

Rev.2_1

C1: The Authors aplied tivariate tobit regression models, in order to ensure the accuracy and reliability required to validate empirical tests. They claim, that conclusion that inbound and outbound practices and public policies have a positive and influence on the eco-innovative performance of the firms studied. Main limitations of this paper is data from 2010 year, due to scarcity of available information.

A1: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and limitation pointed out. The empirical approach was developed using data collected from CIS 2010 and, as stated in section 6, this is identified as one of the limitations of the current analysis. Although we have already applied for requesting institutional access to the latest version of CIS 2018 until now it was not possible to have access to the data of the 6 EU countries under analysis.

Comment No.

Page

No.

Section

Reviewer 4: Comments

Amendments

Rev.4_1

C1: The purpose of this paper is to examine the effects of open innovation on eco-innovation, based on inbound and outbound support practices. Specifically, it aims to analyze the effects of these practices on the eco-innovative performance of bioeconomyand non-bioeconomy firms, using secondary data gathered from the CIS 2010 fora sample of moderately innovative countries. The topic of this paper is interesting and the manuscript is well written. However, the paper has to be improved in order to be ready for the publication.

The main strengths of this paper are the following:

·        The title accurately reflects the content of this study.

·        The tables and figures are presented clearly.

·        The Introduction section is well organized.

·        The methods employed appropriate.

·        Results are presented clearly and analyzed appropriately.

A1: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and positive feedback.

Rev.4_2

1

Abstract

C2: The abstract of the paper is not complete and stand-alone. Authors mention the objective, the methodology as well as the results of this research. Authors did not highlight the need and the research gap in order to conduct this survey and study this research field. Also, some details about the theoretical and practical contribution of the paper are required.

A2: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and constructive feedback. Accordingly, the following sentences were added:

Generating innovation with environmental impact is crucial for firms to achieve sustainable eco-innovative performance. In the reference literature on open innovation, gaps still persist at the level of scarce and limited knowledge on the use of knowledge sources and flows, for the purpose of strengthening the eco-innovative performance of the Bioeconomy sector. To address these caveats, …

The contribution provided is two-fold: (i) in theoretical terms, is extended an operational model of open innovation inbound and outbound practices, crossing financial flows and innovation directions; and (ii) in empirical terms, brings new light to the still limited knowledge about the positive and significant effect of open innovation outbound practices on the eco-innovative performance of companies belonging to a strategic sector, worldwide, that is, the Bioeconomy sector, which has a renewed strategic importance in the face of global climate change.

(as previously answered to question 1 (Q1) of the reviewer 1)

Rev.4_3

Conclusion

Conclusion

C3: The Introduction is focused and it has the traditional structure. The research gap and the motivation are clearly mentioned and justify the value of this paper. Authors mentioned the theoretical and practical contribution of the paper and used appropriate references to justify the significance and motivation of this study.

The paper demonstrates an adequate understanding of the relevant literature in the field and authors cite an appropriate range of literature sources. Several concepts are presented as being related to open innovation and eco-innovation and authors discussed sufficiently their interrelations. Furthermore, hypotheses are clearly identified and analyzed in the theoretical background section.

C4: The research on which the paper is based is well designed and the methods that have been employed are appropriate. Authors presented the results of the analysis, discussed the main findings of the study and made a comparison with findings of previous papers. Finally, authors provided limitations and suggestions for future research. However, authors should answer the following questions in order to make the contribution of the paper explicit in conclusion:           

•          What does this research tell us that we didn’t already know?   

C5:

•          What is the contribution of the most significant results of the paper?

A3: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and constructive feedback.

A4: Considering the reviewer’s comment, which we acknowledge the following sentence was added in section 6. Conclusions (page 20):

The empirical evidence now obtained sheds new light and provides both theoretical and empirical contributions on the positive and significant influence of open innovation outbound practices on eco-innovation, in particular, the pecuniary flows, since for non-pecuniary one, it was only possible to detect a positive relationship, for the cases of Bioeconomy companies of the Czech Republic and non-Bioeconomy companies of Hungary, which are two examples of transition economies with an upward innovative profile on the pathway to the maturity of open innovation processes.

A5: These results advance the still limited knowledge about the importance associated with the implementation of open innovation outbound practices on the eco-innovative performance of companies belonging to a strategic sector, worldwide, that is, Bioeconomy sector, since the previous empirical evidence regarding this sector with increased strategic importance in the face of global climate change, are still scarce or even neglected in the literature and reference on open innovation.

Rev.2_4

C6: References should be updated. Authors can add the following papers:

·        Crupi, A., Del Sarto, N., Di Minin, A., Phaal, R., &Piccaluga, A. (2020). Open innovation environments as knowledge sharing enablers: the case of strategic technology and innovative management consortium. JournalofKnowledgeManagement (in press).

·         

·        Blumberga, A., Bazbauers, G., Davidsen, P. I., Blumberga, D., Gravelsins, A., &Prodanuks, T. (2018). System dynamics model of a biotechonomy. Journal of Cleaner Production, 172, 4018-4032.

·         

·        Kitsios, F., &Kamariotou, M. (2016, May). The impact of Information Technology and the alignment between business and service innovation strategy on service innovation performance. In 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering, Management Science and Application (ICIMSA)(pp. 247-251). IEEE.

·        Mertens, A., Van Lancker, J., Buysse, J., Lauwers, L., & Van Meensel, J. (2019). Overcoming non-technical challenges in bioeconomy value-chain development: Learning from practice. Journalofcleanerproduction, 231, 10-20.

·         

·        Lopes, C. M., Scavarda, A., Hofmeister, L. F., Thomé, A. M. T., & Vaccaro, G. L. R. (2017). An analysis of the interplay between organizational sustainability, knowledge management, and open innovation. JournalofCleanerProduction, 142, 476-488.

·         

·        Remneland Wikhamn, B., & Styhre, A. (2019). Managerial challenges of outbound open innovation: a study of a spinout initiative in AstraZeneca. R&D Management, 49(4), 652-667.

Sanz-Hernández, A., Sanagustín-Fons, M. V., &López-Rodríguez, M. E. (2019). A transition to an innovative and inclusive bioeconomy in Aragon, Spain. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 33, 301-316.

·        Van Lancker, J., Wauters, E., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2016). Managing innovation in the bioeconomy: An open innovation perspective. Biomass and Bioenergy, 90, 60-69.

A6: Considering the reviewer’s comment, which we acknowledge, the following reference studies were introduced along the body of the manuscript:

In inbound OI, knowledge flows from the external environment towards the focal firm; vice versa, in outbound OI, knowledge internally developed flows in direction to the the external environment [40].

…policy-makers [121,122].

Every innovation strategy provides a clear direction for addressing strategic issues, the selection of the market where the company wants to enter and abilities to be developed [5].

The bioeconomy requires vast amounts of biomass that current value chains cannot provide [124].

The concept of eco-innovation relates to organizational sustainability and circular economies [58].

In other words, open innovation assumes that firms should make use not only external sources for innovation and external paths to the market, but also internal knowledge through external paths to the market [29].

Firms can contribute to creating a strong and densified network of multilevel cooperation and alliances involving all the stakeholders [92].

policy-makers [121,122]