Open Innovation in Energy: A Conceptual Model of Stakeholder Collaboration for Green Transition and Energy Security

Abstract

This paper addresses the very important and topical issue of the effective and efficient implementation of green and energy transition processes, taking into account social aspects and energy security. Due to climate change and the geopolitical situation, these processes are currently priorities for most countries and regions of the world. The opportunity to achieve success in their implementation lies in the implementation of the Open Innovation concept in a new model developed and presented in this paper. Its essence is an identified group of stakeholders in the processes under study (science, business, state, society, environment) and their specific positions, roles, and relationships. It was also important to analyze the mechanisms of cooperation and interaction between stakeholders, defining key forms and directions, as well as ways of harmonizing them, leading to synergy in innovation processes. A significant stage of the work was also the development of a RACI role and responsibility matrix, which enabled the precise assignment of functions to individual stakeholders in the developed model. Key challenges, barriers (technological, regulatory, organizational, and social), and factors conducive to the coordination of cooperation and interests of the identified stakeholder groups were also identified. To deepen knowledge and better understand the dynamics of this cooperation, a matrix was also developed to assess priorities and their impact on the energy sector within the open innovation model. This tool enables the identification of diverse perspectives in relation to key criteria such as energy security, innovation, social participation, and sustainable development. In addition, a set of indicators (in five key categories of the innovation ecosystem) was developed to enable multidimensional measurement of the effectiveness, efficiency, and scalability of the open innovation model in the energy sector. They also allow for the study of the impact of these factors on the sustainable development, security, and resilience of energy systems. The developed and presented concept of a model of cooperation between stakeholders using the Open Innovation model in the energy industry is universal in nature and can also be used in other sectors. Its application offers broad opportunities to support the management of transformation processes, taking into account the innovative solutions that are necessary for the success of these processes.

1. Introduction

In the current geopolitical reality, the energy sector is undergoing complex transformation processes. The complexity of this process encompasses not only technological aspects, but also strategic ones that affect both the competitiveness of the economy and the security of individual countries and regions [1,2]. The directions of this transformation include three very important and complex processes: decarbonization, digitization, and decentralization of energy sources [1,3]. Each of these processes responds to different challenges that shape the future of the economy and determine the framework of energy policy.

Decarbonization is a response to environmental and climate challenges related to the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the pursuit of climate neutrality [4,5]. It requires changes in energy mixes, the development of renewable energy sources, and the implementation of low-carbon technologies, which at the same time entail challenges related to the stability of energy supplies and the costs of energy transition [6,7]. Digitalization, in turn, is a response to technological and systemic challenges [8,9]. The integration of advanced information and communication technologies, smart grids, and analytical tools allows for better balancing of the energy system, increased efficiency, and reduced losses. However, it also requires addressing challenges in cybersecurity, system interoperability, and high investment costs [10,11]. Decentralization, in turn, is a response to social challenges and the need to ensure energy security [12,13]. The growing role of prosumer energy, cooperatives, and energy clusters promotes local independence and social participation in transformation processes [14]. At the same time, it generates challenges related to the coordination of many dispersed entities, their integration with national power systems, and ensuring the stability and reliability of energy supplies on a macro scale [15].

As a result, the current energy transition is two-dimensional: proactive, aimed at combating climate change and supporting sustainable development, and reactive, resulting from the need to build resilience and ensure energy security in the face of geopolitical instability [16]. In the face of such complex and multidimensional challenges, traditional, closed models of innovation based solely on the use of internal resources appear to be insufficient. Achieving a balance between sustainable development, technological innovation, and energy security requires a different, new approach based on broad cooperation and knowledge exchange between various stakeholder groups involved in the energy transition process.

In this context, the concept of open innovation, which assumes the free flow of knowledge, technology, and resources between organizations, as well as the active involvement of external entities in research and development processes, becomes particularly important [17,18]. In the energy sector, open innovation will mean creating ecosystems in which science, business, the state, civil society, and the natural environment participate in co-creating innovation. This will make it possible to accelerate the green transition while strengthening the resilience and security of energy systems.

However, the effectiveness of this approach depends on the appropriate design of cooperation mechanisms between stakeholders, as well as on the clear assignment and harmonization of their roles, responsibilities, and communication channels. Due to its strategic nature, the energy sector requires the development of a cooperation framework that will maximize synergies, minimize conflicts of interest, and increase the effectiveness and scalability of innovation. A properly designed open innovation model in the energy sector can therefore be a key tool for integrating climate transformation goals with energy security requirements, laying the foundations for a sustainable and resilient future energy economy.

In the context of the above, the objective of this work was formulated, which is to develop a concept of an open innovation model for the energy sector, enabling the integration of the activities of various stakeholders in the green transition process, while strengthening energy resilience and security. This model aims to define cooperation mechanisms, assign roles and responsibilities, and identify factors conducive to the harmonization of interests in order to maximize synergies, minimize conflicts, and increase the efficiency and scalability of innovation in the energy sector.

The following research questions were formulated for this purpose:

• RQ(1): Who are the key stakeholders in the open innovation ecosystem in the energy sector and what roles do they play in the process of implementing the green transition and strengthening energy security?
• RQ(2): What are the key forms and directions of interaction between stakeholders in the open innovation model that support both the green transition process and the improvement of energy security?
• RQ(3): What mechanisms of cooperation between stakeholders (science, business, government, society, environment) exist in the context of implementing energy innovations?
• RQ(4): How can the roles and responsibilities of individual actors be effectively assigned and harmonized to achieve maximum synergy and reduce the risk of conflicts of interest?
• RQ(5): What factors facilitate and what factors hinder the coordination of interests of various groups involved in the development of innovation in the energy sector (technological, regulatory, organizational, and social barriers)?
• RQ(6): What indicators can be used to assess the effectiveness of the open innovation model in the energy sector in terms of innovation, security, and system resilience?

In order to answer the above questions, a conceptual and analytical approach was used, based on a critical review of the literature on the subject and an analysis of existing models of cooperation in the energy sector and related high-tech industries. The starting point was the theoretical framework of open innovation and models that have been developed and adapted to the specific nature of the energy industry. The presented model was built on the basis of a triangulation of sources, including scientific literature, strategic documents, and analyses of practical implementations of innovative projects in the field of renewable energy, hydrogen technologies, and energy storage.

The novelty of this work lies in proposing an integrated open innovation model for the energy sector that combines the goals of green transformation with energy security requirements. Its originality is evidenced by the following elements:

–

Identification of key stakeholders in the open innovation ecosystem in the energy sector and definition of their roles in the process of green transition and strengthening energy security.

–

Analysis of the directions and forms of interaction between stakeholders that enable the combination of environmental goals with the requirements of system stability and social acceptance.

–

Characterization of the mechanisms of cooperation between science, business, the state, society, and the environment in the context of implementing energy innovations, which allows for capturing both classic and modern forms of open cooperation.

–

Precise assignment of roles and responsibilities of stakeholders within the RACI matrix.

–

Application of a matrix for assessing the priorities and influence of stakeholders, allowing for the identification of value hierarchies and potential sources of synergy and conflict in innovation processes.

–

Development of a set of KPIs enabling a multidimensional assessment of the effectiveness and balance of the open innovation ecosystem, both in technological and economic terms, as well as in social, environmental, and systemic terms.

As a result, the proposed model serves a dual purpose: on the one hand, it provides a theoretical framework for deepening the understanding of stakeholder cooperation in the energy sector, and on the other, it is a practical tool supporting the design and evaluation of policies and innovation initiatives in the context of energy transition.

2. Literature Review

This section is divided into several subsections that correspond to the key problem areas of the research. First, the concept of open innovation and its development are discussed, pointing to the evolution from closed models to open innovation ecosystems. Next, models of stakeholder cooperation (from the Triple Helix to the Quintuple Helix concepts) are presented, which provide a theoretical basis for analyzing interactions in the energy sector. The next part is devoted to the specifics of the energy sector, with particular emphasis on the transformation processes related to decarbonization, digitization, and decentralization. The last subsection refers to the issues of energy security and system resilience, which are a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of innovation implementation in this sector.

2.1. Open Innovation

The concept of open innovation (OI) was introduced by Chesbrough [18] and is currently one of the most important theories of contemporary innovation management [19]. Unlike the traditional “closed” model, in which research and development processes were carried out mainly within companies, OI assumes the opening of organizational boundaries and the active use of external sources of knowledge, technology, and resources [20]. This means that innovations are created and implemented not only through internal research and development activities, but also through the absorption, adaptation, and integration of results from the external environment—universities, research institutes, start-ups, suppliers, users, and civil society [21].

Empirical research indicates that openness in innovation processes helps accelerate the innovation cycle, reduce R&D costs, increase the effectiveness of technology transfer, and better match products and services to the needs of the market and society [22]. The concept of IO goes beyond the purely technological sphere, as it also covers organizational, social, and strategic aspects that give innovation a more complex and systemic character.

The literature distinguishes between various dimensions of openness to innovation, including:

–

Inbound OI, which involves acquiring knowledge and technology from outside [22];

–

Outbound OI, which refers to making one’s own resources available to other entities (e.g., licensing, spin-offs) [23];

–

And the coupled OI model, which integrates both approaches within partnerships and consortia [20].

In recent years, researchers and practitioners have been particularly interested in the diversification of open innovation development channels, which include both traditional forms of cooperation, such as joint research and development projects, consortia, and co-patents, as well as modern digital and participatory tools. These include open data platforms, hackathons, crowdsourcing, living labs, as well as open patent databases and knowledge repositories [21,24,25,26]. These mechanisms increase the transparency, scalability, and inclusiveness of innovation processes, opening them up to a wide range of participants.

The social and environmental dimensions of open innovation are also increasingly emphasized in the literature. OI is no longer treated solely as a tool for increasing economic competitiveness, but also as a mechanism supporting sustainable development, civic participation, and environmental protection [27,28]. This approach is particularly well suited to the challenges of the energy sector, which is at the intersection of climate transformation, digitalization, and the need to strengthen energy security.

2.2. Cooperation Models: From Triple Helix to Quintuple Helix

One of the key trends in research on contemporary innovation systems are helix (cooperation) models, which describe the relationships between different stakeholder groups in innovation processes. The starting point for their development was the Triple Helix concept, proposed by Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff [29], which assumes close cooperation between science, business, and the state. This model was a breakthrough in thinking about innovation, shifting the emphasis from the individual activities of institutions to the interactions and interdependencies between them. Research has shown that this approach promotes better commercialization of research results, more effective technology transfer, and the creation of institutional conditions conducive to the development of innovation.

In subsequent years, this model was expanded to include additional dimensions. The Quadruple Helix concept was developed, introducing civil society as the fourth element of the system [30]. The inclusion of society in innovation processes resulted from the growing role of social participation, the need for acceptance of new technologies, and the co-creation of knowledge (e.g., citizen science, living labs). The Quadruple Helix emphasizes the importance of the cultural and communicative dimension, pointing out that innovations cannot be created in isolation from social needs, values, and expectations.

The latest development of this theory is the Quintuple Helix concept, which adds the natural environment as a fifth, full-fledged actor to science, business, government, and society [30]. This model fits into the paradigm of sustainable development, in which innovation must be consistent not only with economic and social conditions, but also with environmental ones. The natural environment is no longer treated solely as a constraint or context for activity, but is beginning to be seen as a factor that actively shapes the direction of technology development and innovation policies.

The evolution of models from Triple Helix to Quintuple Helix thus reflects a gradual broadening of the understanding of innovation—from interactions between institutions, through the inclusion of citizens and society, to integration with the environmental dimension. The literature emphasizes that this last stage is particularly important in the context of the energy sector, where climate transformation, energy security, and public acceptance are closely interlinked [31,32].

2.3. Energy and Energy Security in the Context of the Green Transition

The modern energy sector is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the processes of decarbonization and decentralization of energy sources [33,34]. The green transition is a process with social, economic, and geopolitical dimensions that redefines the meaning of energy security. Traditionally, it has been equated with the continuity and stability of fossil fuel supplies, but the literature increasingly emphasizes its multidimensional nature, which also includes environmental, economic, social, and political aspects [35,36].

In this context, it is crucial to link climate transformation with the resilience of energy systems to geopolitical and economic crises. The development of renewable energy sources (RES), prosumer energy, smart grids, and hydrogen technologies increases local independence and diversification of the energy mix, which helps to reduce dependence on unstable commodity markets [37,38,39]. At the same time, however, the implementation of new technologies poses challenges in terms of grid stability, system interoperability, and cybersecurity.

The concept of open innovation provides a framework for combining the interests of different groups of actors and addressing the above challenges more effectively. As Chesbrough and co-authors [18,28] emphasize, opening organizational boundaries promotes faster innovation, reduces R&D costs, and better aligns technology with social needs. In the energy sector, this takes the form of, among other things, joint research and industrial projects, open data platforms, living labs, and public–private partnerships that enable the co-creation of technological and organizational solutions.

The literature on the subject emphasizes that the Quintuple Helix model, which, as mentioned in Section 2.2, expanded the classic Triple and Quadruple Helix approaches to include an environmental dimension, provides a particularly useful analytical framework for studying the transformation processes of complex socio-technical systems [40,41]. Taking the natural environment into account as a full stakeholder not only allows for a better understanding of the conditions for innovation development, but also links them to sustainable development goals. This approach seems relevant in the context of the energy sector, which operates at the intersection of climatic, technological, social, and geopolitical challenges.

2.4. Research Gap

The review indicates that the concept of open innovation has been widely applied in many sectors of the economy. A number of models for cooperation between stakeholders in innovation processes have been developed, based on the integration of these groups in order to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of these processes, e.g., for SMEs [42,43], large companies [44], the public sector [45], and smart cities [46]. Most often, these models refer to developed helix concepts, showing the complexity of innovation processes in a systemic approach.

However, in the field of energy, there is a lack of a coherent and comprehensive conceptual framework that would allow for a comprehensive description of stakeholder cooperation in the process of implementing the concept of open innovation. Although existing research focuses on cooperation for sustainable development, in most cases it is of a general nature [47,48]. The main challenge therefore remains to refine these approaches by identifying a complete map of stakeholders, defining their roles and responsibilities, defining cooperation mechanisms, and developing tools to measure the effectiveness and efficiency of these processes, e.g., through a set of KPIs.

The identified research gap therefore justifies the need to develop a conceptual model of open innovation for the energy sector that integrates both climate transformation goals and energy security requirements.

3. Research Methodology

Due to the complexity of the problem under study, i.e., the integration of the concept of open innovation with the processes of green transformation and energy security, the research is conceptual and analytical in nature. A qualitative approach was adopted, based on the triangulation of sources and methods [49,50], enabling the comparison of innovation management theory with public policies in the field of energy.

The essence of the research procedure is to build a conceptual model of open innovation for the energy sector, based on the Quintuple Helix model [27,40,41], which takes into account five main stakeholder groups: science, business, government, society, and the natural environment.

The research was based on a broad and diverse range of sources, including both scientific literature and strategic documents such as reports, public policies, and other program materials. First, scientific literature available in the Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was used. This literature included scientific publications on open innovation, energy transition, sustainable development, and energy security. The second group of sources consisted of strategic documents and reports from international and European institutions, such as the European Green Deal [51], the Fit for 55 package [52], the Horizon Europe research and innovation program [53], as well as reports prepared by, for example, the International Energy Agency (IEA) [54,55].

Several key evaluation criteria were adopted in the analytical process. First, the stakeholders in the ecosystem were analyzed, and their roles, responsibilities, and potential areas of cooperation were defined. Second, the mechanisms of cooperation between stakeholders in the open innovation model for the energy sector were assessed, taking into account their ability to generate synergies and their scalability potential in the context of the energy transition. Another element was the development of a set of KPIs that enable the measurement and evaluation of the effects of implementing open innovation not only in terms of technology and innovation, but also from an environmental perspective and in terms of the security of energy systems. An analysis of barriers and factors conducive to cooperation within the framework of open innovation for the energy sector was also carried out.

It should be emphasized that this research is conceptual in nature, which means that it does not include empirical validation of the proposed model in the long term.

Despite this limitation, the methodology developed and applied in the study introduces significant new elements. First of all, it integrates the theory of open innovation with the dimensions of energy security and system resilience, which have so far been marginally present in this type of research. The study also proposes a coherent set of KPIs that go beyond classic indicators such as the number of patents or the amount of R&D expenditure, also covering systemic aspects such as network reliability indicators (SAIDI and SAIFI), emission reduction, the share of prosumers in the energy mix, and the level of public acceptance. The paper also develops the concept of mechanisms for harmonizing roles and communication in the innovation ecosystem, which allows for a better understanding of how to minimize conflicts of interest and maximize synergies in the strategic energy sector.

The research was conducted in several logically related stages, the aim of which was to move from theoretical analysis to the construction of a conceptual model of open innovation in the energy sector.

The first stage of the research therefore involved an analysis of the literature on the subject and available theoretical approaches. A critical review was conducted and included scientific publications on the concept of open innovation, innovation models (Triple, Quadruple, and Quintuple Helix), as well as documents and reports relating to green transition and energy security policies. At this stage, research gaps were also identified, including, in particular, insufficient consideration of the dimension of security and systemic resilience in existing open innovation models.

The second stage focused on identifying stakeholders and defining their roles in the process of green transition and strengthening energy security. To this end, a map of energy sector stakeholders in terms of open innovation was developed, covering five main groups: science, business, government, civil society, and the natural environment. The analysis was based on scientific literature, strategic documents, and industry reports, which made it possible to capture both the potential benefits of their cooperation and possible sources of conflict and barriers to the integration of activities.

The third stage of the research involved analyzing the mechanisms of cooperation and interaction between stakeholders. Key forms and directions were identified, as well as ways to harmonize them, leading to synergies in innovation processes.

The fourth stage involved the development of a set of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). These indicators were selected and systematized to enable a multidimensional measurement of the effectiveness, efficiency, and scalability of innovations in the energy sector, as well as their impact on sustainable development, energy security, and system resilience. The proposed set of KPIs was developed based on a multi-stage procedure combining the results of a literature review, expert assessment, and conceptual alignment with the objectives of the open innovation model. In the first stage, indicators were identified based on existing reference frameworks related to energy transition, innovation management, and sustainable development (including the OECD Green Growth Indicators [56], Horizon Europe monitoring framework [57], and ESG reporting standards [58]). In the second stage, the indicators were selected using SMART criteria (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound) to ensure their clarity and practical applicability. Finally, the indicators were divided into five groups—scientific, economic, institutional, social, and environmental—corresponding to the dimensions of the Quintuple Helix model. This approach ensures the internal consistency of the indicator set and facilitates the application of the entire model in future empirical research.

4. Results

In the first part of the study (Stage I), a targeted literature review was conducted in accordance with the methodology described in Section 3. The analysis covered scientific publications, industry reports, and strategic documents relating to open innovation, innovation models, and socio-technical transitions in the energy sector, as well as policies on green transition and energy security. On this basis, Stage II was carried out, involving the identification of stakeholders and the definition of their roles in the green transition and energy security building processes, as well as cooperation mechanisms and the definition of a matrix of stakeholder roles and RACI responsibilities.

4.1. Identification of Key Stakeholders in the Open Innovation Model in the Energy Sector (RQ1)

The identification of the stakeholder group was the starting point for building the model, as they form the foundation of the ecosystem for open innovation. Defining their roles and interrelationships made it possible to capture the complexity of energy transition processes, in which innovations do not arise in isolation, but at the intersection of various spheres—science, economy, administration, society, and the environment. This stage of the research therefore focused on identifying the entities that play strategic roles in the development of the green transition and the building of energy security, as well as on identifying potential areas of synergy and conflicts of interest.

The analysis, based on available scientific publications, industry reports, strategic documents, and energy and climate policies, showed that the effective implementation of the green transition, while strengthening energy security, requires the involvement of five key stakeholder groups. Their cooperation is captured in the Quintuple Helix conceptual model, which integrates the perspectives of science and research institutions, business and enterprises, the state and public administration, civil society, and the natural environment (Figure 1).

Adopting the Quintuple Helix model perspective has made it possible to organize the roles and significance of individual groups in the open innovation process in the energy sector. Each of them contributes a different but complementary set of resources, competencies, and interests, which, when combined, enable the creation of a synergistic innovation ecosystem. In the proposed open innovation ecosystem, stakeholder groups are not homogeneous. Within each axis of the Quintuple Helix model, there are actors differing in scale of operation, functions, and nature of involvement in the innovation process. This is particularly evident in the economic sphere, where large corporations, SMEs, and start-ups play complementary yet distinct roles in the development of technological and organizational innovations in the energy sector. The characteristics of the five main stakeholder groups in this process are presented below [41,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66]:

–

Science and research institutions—act as providers of knowledge, technological innovation, and highly qualified personnel for the energy sector. Their role includes not only conducting basic and applied research, but also technology transfer and cooperation with industry in the process of commercializing research results. This makes them a key link between scientific potential and the practical needs of the economy. In addition, universities and research centers play an important role in shaping innovation culture and building human capital through education, doctoral training, and interdisciplinary research projects. They also act as incubators of start-ups and spin-offs, supporting the commercialization of innovative solutions and the creation of academic entrepreneurship. Through participation in international research networks and programs such as Horizon Europe, they contribute to the diffusion of knowledge, the exchange of best practices, and the global alignment of innovation priorities in the energy sector;

–

The economic sector (business)—comprises a broad and heterogeneous group of entities performing complementary functions within the open innovation ecosystem. Large energy enterprises act as investors and integrators of hydrogen technologies and renewable energy sources, bearing the main financial and infrastructural risks. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) serve as an intermediary link between research and industrial implementation, providing components, services, and system integration solutions. Start-ups, in turn, are a source of breakthrough and digital innovations, often focusing on AI-based energy management systems, IoT solutions for infrastructure monitoring, or optimization tools based on data analytics. Together, these actors ensure the smooth transition of innovative concepts from the laboratory phase to practical market applications, although differences in their time horizons and resources require appropriate cooperation mechanisms and financial instruments;

–

The state and public administration—shape the regulatory framework and policies supporting green transition and energy security. The state acts as a regulator, initiator of support programs, and coordinator of cross-sector activities. Local government (local authorities) plays a particularly important role as a catalyst for innovation at the regional level by supporting energy clusters, prosumer cooperatives, and local smart grid projects. In addition, the state fulfills an integrating and enabling function by ensuring legal stability, predictable policy frameworks, and access to funding instruments that reduce the investment risk of innovative projects. It also promotes innovation through strategic documents, public procurement policies, and regulatory sandboxes that allow for testing new solutions under controlled conditions. Public administration serves as a link between national and European policy levels, facilitating the implementation of EU strategies such as the European Green Deal [51] or REPowerEU [67];

–

Civil society—includes prosumers, non-governmental organizations, and local communities. Its role is not limited to passive participation—society is becoming an active co-creator of the transition, engaging in living labs, pilot projects, and participatory initiatives. In addition, society contributes an element of social acceptance, which is one of the key factors determining the success of energy innovations. Civil society also plays an important role in co-designing and co-evaluating solutions, ensuring that innovation processes are inclusive and socially just. Prosumers and local communities, empowered by decentralized energy models, contribute directly to energy democracy and local resilience by generating, managing, and sharing renewable energy resources. Educational initiatives, public consultations, and participatory budgeting mechanisms further strengthen civic engagement and trust in innovation processes;

–

The environment—in the Quintuple Helix concept—is treated as a full-fledged actor determining the direction of innovation. In this approach, the environment is not only an external constraint, but actively shapes development priorities and forces the implementation of pro-environmental solutions. The role of the environment in the Quintuple Helix model is realized through specific mechanisms that translate ecological priorities into strategic and technological decisions. These include, among others, Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA), Life Cycle Analyses (LCA), and the application of sustainable development standards in energy investment planning. The interests of the environment are also institutionally represented by environmental organizations, regulatory bodies, and certification systems that enforce compliance with biodiversity protection and emission reduction goals. Through these mechanisms, the natural environment exerts a real influence on innovation directions and development priorities, becoming a driving force rather than merely a contextual element of energy transition processes. Including the environment in the model allows open innovation to be more closely linked to sustainable development goals, making it the foundation for long-term energy transformation. Including the environment in the model allows open innovation to be more closely linked to sustainable development goals, making it the foundation for long-term energy transformation.

Table 1. List of stakeholders for the open innovation ecosystem in the energy sector.

Stakeholder Group	Role in the Ecosystem	Key Interests	Responsibilities	Potential Benefits of Cooperation	Barriers/Risks
Science and research institutions	Generating knowledge, technological innovation, and human resources (universities, research institutes, innovation centers)	Research funding, technology development, commercialization of results	Conducting research, technology transfer, cooperation with business and public sector	Access to data and industrial practice, joint patents, increasing the application of research results	Limited focus on implementation, divergent time horizons, dependence on public funding
Business (large corporations, SMEs, start-ups)	Implementation, investment, and scaling of innovation across multiple levels of the energy value chain	Profitability, competitiveness, cost reduction, market expansion	Commercialization of technology (corporations), integration and adaptation of solutions (SMEs), development of digital and disruptive innovations (start-ups); investment in R&D	Faster introduction of innovations to the market, co-creation of solutions with science and start-ups, diversification of innovation sources	High financial and regulatory risk (corporations), limited capital and dependence on larger partners (SMEs), market uncertainty and IP protection issues (start-ups)
State and public administration	Regulations, policies supporting transformation, energy security; creation of an enabling environment for innovation	Supply stability, climate goals, regional development	Development of regulatory frameworks, support and financing programs, cross-sector coordination, creation of smart specialization strategies	Increased policy effectiveness, better alignment of regulations with practice, stimulation of regional innovation ecosystems	Bureaucracy, regulatory delays, political instability, fragmented competencies between governance levels
Civil society (prosumers, NGOs, local communities)	Participation, social acceptance, and co-creation of innovation; shaping public trust	Lower energy costs, energy independence, improved quality of life	Participation in pilot projects and living labs, support for local energy and environmental initiatives	Increased social engagement, better alignment of innovation with societal needs, enhanced legitimacy of energy projects	Lack of technical expertise, limited information access, NIMBY phenomenon (“not in my backyard”)
Natural environment	Determinant of the direction of innovation and technology development; active driver of sustainability-oriented innovation	Protection of biodiversity, reduction in emissions, sustainable development	Identifying environmental constraints and priorities, enforcing eco-innovation, setting ecological standards	Development of green technologies, circular economy, environmental monitoring and certification	Conflicts with energy infrastructure (e.g., wind farms vs. landscape protection), slow adaptation of environmental regulations

summarizes the roles, interests, and responsibilities of five key stakeholder groups in the open innovation model for the energy sector, in accordance with the Quintuple Helix concept. This summary provides a structured overview of the functions of individual actors, their motivations, the expected benefits of cooperation, and potential barriers that may hinder effective coordination of activities in the innovation ecosystem. However, it should be emphasized that the stakeholder groups presented in Table 1 are internally diverse. The economic sector brings together actors with different resources, motivations, and risk profiles—ranging from multinational corporations to SMEs and start-ups. Such diversity increases the resilience of the innovation ecosystem but at the same time poses challenges in terms of coordination, financing, and intellectual property protection. Taking these differences into account allows for a more realistic and operational interpretation of the Quintuple Helix model in the energy sector.

In practice, the principles of stakeholder collaboration are reflected in a number of national and international initiatives that operationalize the assumptions of the open innovation concept. An example of this is the European Hydrogen Valleys [68], developed under the Horizon Europe program [53] and within the S3 Hydrogen Valleys partnership [69], which integrate universities, research and development units, enterprises, regional administrations, and local communities to build integrated hydrogen value chains. These projects illustrate how cooperation within the Quintuple Helix model supports the emergence of regional innovation ecosystems that connect scientific and technical activities with economic and social processes.

Another example of the practical implementation of open innovation principles is Smart Grid Innovation Hubs, which serve as collaborative spaces between science, industry, and public administration for the development and testing of modern grid technologies. One of the most recognizable examples is the Global Smart Grids Innovation Hub [70], located in Bilbao (Spain) and operated by the Iberdrola Group. This center serves as an international platform for research and development cooperation, bringing together more than 80 industrial and scientific partners from 19 countries. The hub’s activities focus on areas such as the digitalization of power infrastructure, grid automation, integration of renewable energy sources, development of smart meters, and demand management.

In such initiatives, the role of civil society as a co-creator of innovation is particularly evident—prosumers participate in pilot projects, testing solutions that enhance energy efficiency and the flexibility of power systems. At the same time, the natural environment acts as a determining factor shaping the directions of technological development, driving the implementation of solutions aimed at reducing emissions and improving energy efficiency across the entire energy value chain.

4.2. Identification of Key Interactions Between Stakeholders in the Open Innovation Model in the Energy Sector (RQ2)

In the next stage of the research, key interactions were identified for the identified stakeholders, which reflect the functional links between the individual helixes in the Quintuple Helix model and thus determine the directions and mechanisms of cooperation in the open innovation ecosystem in the energy sector:

(1)

Science ↔ Business—Cooperation between science and business is primarily achieved through joint research and development projects, joint patents, technology transfer, and innovation incubators. Universities and research institutes provide theoretical knowledge and personnel, while companies are responsible for implementing and scaling technologies. This mechanism shortens the time from idea to commercialization and increases the efficiency of public funds. The main barriers include conflicts over intellectual property, differences in time horizons, and a limited culture of cooperation.

(2)

Science ↔ State—The interaction between science and the state is based on grant systems, research programs, and the creation of energy and climate transformation strategies. The state sets research priorities and finances activities, while scientific entities provide the knowledge necessary to develop public policies. This mechanism allows research to be focused on strategic goals such as decarbonization and energy security. Barriers arise from political pressure, limited funding, and the bureaucratization of grant procedures.

(3)

Science ↔ Society—These links include citizen science projects, educational programs, information campaigns, and activities to raise environmental awareness. Scientists involve citizens in research processes, which increases their level of knowledge and strengthens acceptance of energy innovations. This interaction allows society to participate in the transformation process, not only as a recipient but also as a co-creator. Barriers include limited participation, lack of motivation, and difficulties in translating research results into language that is understandable to the general public.

(4)

Science ↔ Environment—This relationship includes research on climate change, monitoring the impact of energy technologies on ecosystems, and developing eco-innovations. Science acts as an observer and analyst of environmental processes, and the environment is not only the context for research but also a factor forcing specific directions of development. This interaction promotes the development of solutions that are consistent with the principles of sustainable development, such as renewable energy technologies with a low impact on biodiversity. Barriers include difficulties in accessing environmental data, high research costs, and the complexity of ecological processes.

(5)

Business ↔ State—Cooperation between business and the state takes the form of public–private partnerships (PPPs), subsidies, public procurement for innovative solutions, and regulations supporting green transformation. The state stimulates innovation through financial and regulatory instruments, while business contributes capital and implementation capacity. This interaction increases the scalability of innovation and ensures the stability of the investment environment. Barriers include bureaucracy, volatility in energy policy, and the risk of regulations not matching market realities.

(6)

Business ↔ Society—This relationship is based on prosumer energy, cooperatives, and energy clusters, as well as CSR projects and loyalty programs that support the energy transition. By offering products and services, business co-creates value with local communities, which gain energy independence and lower energy costs. This mechanism increases social acceptance and engages citizens in active participation in the transition. Barriers include low technical competence and the NIMBY (not in my backyard) phenomenon.

(7)

Business ↔ Environment—This interaction includes the implementation of renewable energy sources, investments in the circular economy, and reporting in accordance with ESG standards. Energy and industrial companies increasingly need to take environmental criteria into account as a condition for competitiveness and public acceptance. This mechanism supports the development of green technologies, but also carries the risk of greenwashing and conflicts with environmental organizations.

(8)

State ↔ Society—These interactions include public consultations, support systems for prosumers, the development of citizen energy, and local initiatives. The state provides the regulatory and financial framework, while society contributes participation and acceptance of the transformation processes. This mechanism increases the legitimacy of public policies and strengthens their effectiveness. Barriers include lack of trust in public institutions, local conflicts of interest, and resistance to infrastructure investments.

(9)

State ↔ Environment—This relationship manifests itself through environmental regulations, emission monitoring systems, and financial instruments supporting green investments. The state is responsible for introducing and enforcing environmental standards that enforce specific directions of transformation. This mechanism promotes the development of low-carbon technologies, but can generate conflicts between economic and environmental goals. Barriers include the costs of implementing regulations and the risk of resistance from high-emission industries.

(10)

Society ↔ Environment—This interaction includes environmental movements, NGO initiatives, and living lab projects, in which citizens test environmentally friendly innovations in real-world conditions. Society acts as a guardian of environmental interests and an active participant in pro-environmental activities. This mechanism strengthens environmental awareness and builds a culture of sustainable consumption. Barriers include conflicts between local and global interests, a lack of organizational resources for NGOs, and difficulties in scaling up grassroots initiatives

The interactions identified show that the effectiveness of the open innovation model in the energy sector stems both from the complementarity of the resources and competencies of individual helices and from their ability to create dynamic functional links. These relationships cover the full spectrum of activities, from research and development cooperation, through financing mechanisms and public regulations, to social and pro-environmental initiatives. Their interpenetration enables the creation of synergies, which are the foundation of an effective and sustainable energy innovation ecosystem.

Table 2. Key interactions in the open innovation model for the energy sector.

Relationship	Forms of Cooperation	Benefits	Potential Barriers
Science ↔ Business	R&D projects, joint patents, licenses, incubators	Knowledge transfer, faster implementation, greater innovation	IP conflicts, differences in time horizons
Science ↔ State	Grants, research programs, climate and energy strategies	Research funding, development of applied research, better policy alignment	Political pressure, limited resources, bureaucracy
Science ↔ Society	Citizen science, educational programs, information campaigns	Increased environmental awareness, social acceptance of innovation	Low participation, lack of motivation, difficult scientific language
Science ↔ Environment	Climate research, ecosystem monitoring, eco-innovations	Low-carbon technologies, better environmental protection	Research costs, lack of data, complexity of environmental processes
Business ↔ State	PPP, subsidies, public procurement, climate regulations	Stability of the environment, financing, scaling innovation	Bureaucracy, regulatory volatility, risk of mismatch
Business ↔ Society	Prosumer energy, cooperatives, energy clusters, CSR	Energy independence, lower costs, greater social involvement	Lack of technical knowledge, NIMBY phenomenon
Business ↔ Environment	Renewable energy sources, circular economy, ESG reporting	Emissions reduction, competitiveness, positive image	Greenwashing, conflicts with NGOs, high investment costs
State ↔ Society	Public consultations, support programs, community energy	Greater public acceptance, policy legitimacy	Lack of trust, local conflicts, resistance to investment
State ↔ Environment	Environmental regulations, emissions monitoring, green financial instruments	Environmental protection, compliance with EU targets, development of renewable energy sources	Implementation costs, economic and environmental conflicts
Society ↔ Environment	NGOs, environmental movements, living labs	Raising awareness, developing grassroots green innovations	Limited NGO resources, difficulties in scaling initiatives, local-global conflicts

presents the key interactions in the open innovation model for the energy sector, along with examples of applications.

4.3. Identification of the Main Types of Cooperation Mechanisms (RQ3)

In the next stage of the research, based on the developed model, the main types of cooperation mechanisms between the identified stakeholders that play a key role in the open innovation process for the energy sector were identified. The main types of cooperation mechanisms identified include solutions that enable the integration of the activities of various stakeholders within the innovation ecosystem. These mechanisms reflect not only the formal and institutional framework for cooperation, but also more flexible and dynamic forms of interaction related to digitization, social participation, and environmental protection. Their role is to create conditions for knowledge exchange, technology transfer, public policy coordination, and the mobilization of social and environmental resources.

The analysis distinguishes between five basic categories of cooperation mechanisms:

(1)

Institutional mechanisms, which include formal cooperation frameworks based on organizational structures and long-term links, such as research and industry consortia, public–private partnerships (PPPs), clusters, and energy cooperatives. Their role is to create stable and predictable conditions for cooperation that allow for the implementation of large research and investment projects requiring the involvement of many parties The Hydrogen Valleys initiative, implemented under the Horizon Europe program, as well as national programs such as IPCEI Hydrogen, are examples of broad institutional cooperation between science, business, and public administration aimed at developing hydrogen infrastructure and energy innovations.

(2)

Financial and regulatory mechanisms are instruments of material and legal support, including grant schemes, subsidies, tax breaks, public procurement, as well as climate, energy, and environmental regulations. They set the framework within which the other mechanisms operate and determine the pace and direction of innovation implementation in the energy sector. A practical example of such an approach is the IPCEI Hydrogen (Important Project of Common European Interest) initiative, which provides coordinated public funding for large hydrogen projects implemented in EU Member States. Within its framework, national governments and the European Commission jointly support industrial investments, research, and pilot projects related to the production, storage, and transport of hydrogen.

(3)

Digital and information mechanisms are based on ICT technologies and support transparency and scalability of activities in the ecosystem. They include open data platforms, patent databases, knowledge exchange systems, and tools supporting the functioning of smart grids. They enable the rapid and widespread flow of information, which becomes the basis for the dynamic development of innovation. Examples include the European Smart Grid Innovation Hubs and open energy data platforms such as the ENTSO-E Transparency Platform, which facilitate real-time data exchange and support intelligent energy system management.

(4)

Social and participatory mechanisms focus on activating citizens and local communities, giving the energy transition a grassroots and inclusive dimension. Living labs, citizen science projects, public consultations, and educational campaigns promote greater public acceptance and strengthen the role of prosumers in the energy system. Initiatives such as Living Labs, including the Lighthouse Cities within the MAKING-CITY (Horizon 2020) project in Groningen (The Netherlands) or the Urban Living Lab Wuppertal (Germany), are examples of active citizen participation in energy transition processes and the co-creation of innovative solutions for sustainable urban development.

(5)

Environmental and innovative mechanisms integrate environmental goals with innovation processes. They include activities such as ecosystem monitoring, the development of renewable energy sources, the implementation of eco-innovations, ESG reporting, and the circular economy. These mechanisms introduce the natural environment as a fully fledged actor in the innovation ecosystem, forcing technology to focus on sustainable development goals. Projects implemented under the LIFE program [71] (e.g., LIFE4BEST [72], LIFE CO₂toCH₄ [73]) demonstrate how environmental priorities can be integrated with technological innovation, simultaneously supporting the goals of sustainable development and the transformation toward a low-emission economy. Numerous studies also confirm that the implementation of low-carbon city policies enhances ecological efficiency primarily through mechanisms of green technology innovation. Research results indicate that environmental and technological innovation processes can generate synergistic benefits for both sustainable development and economic performance [74].

Each of the categories identified has a different but complementary function, and their combined impact creates a coherent open innovation ecosystem in the energy sector.

Table 3. Types of cooperation mechanisms in the open innovation model for the energy sector.

Type of Mechanism	Examples of Applications	Benefits	Potential Barriers
Institutional	Research and industry consortia (e.g., Horizon Europe), public–private partnerships (PPPs) in the construction of renewable energy infrastructure, energy clusters, prosumer cooperatives, technology transfer centers	Synergy of knowledge, capital, and infrastructure, institutional stability, possibility of implementing large-scale projects, efficient use of resources	Excessive bureaucracy, difficulties in coordinating multiple entities, risk of conflicts of interest and power asymmetries, limited flexibility
Financial and regulatory	EU and national research grants, subsidies for prosumers, tax breaks for investors, green bonds, public procurement for innovative technologies, climate and energy regulations (Fit for 55, ETS)	Diversification of funding sources, acceleration of technology implementation, compliance with EU policies, market stabilization, reduction in investment risk	Regulatory instability, administrative barriers, complex application procedures, risk of innovation becoming dependent on subsidies, short-sighted policies
Digital and information	Open data platforms (e.g., data on emissions and energy consumption), patent databases (EPO, WIPO), ICT systems for smart grids and IoT in the energy sector, hackathons, crowdsourcing platforms, blockchain in energy trading	Transparency and openness of processes, faster flow of information, scalability of innovation, possibility of big data and AI analysis, better matching of supply and demand in the energy sector	Lack of system interoperability, threat of cyberattacks, low quality or lack of data, costs of implementing new digital technologies
Social and participatory	Living labs (e.g., microgrids involving prosumers), citizen science projects (air and energy quality monitoring), public consultations on infrastructure planning, educational campaigns and awareness programs, energy clusters	Increased public acceptance, active citizen participation, better alignment of innovation with user needs, increased trust, increased role of prosumers	Lack of motivation to participate, low level of technical competence, NIMBY (not in my backyard) phenomenon, risk of local conflicts, limited community resources
Environmental and innovative	Monitoring of ecosystems and the impact of energy investments, research on climate change, development of renewable energy sources (wind, solar, hydrogen), circular economy in energy, ESG reporting, investments in eco-innovations	Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, protection of biodiversity, development of pro-environmental innovations, integration of environmental goals with business, improvement of company reputation	High implementation costs, risk of greenwashing in ESG reporting, conflict between economic and environmental interests, long return on investment

lists the types of cooperation mechanisms along with examples of their applications, benefits, and potential barriers to their implementation.

4.4. Identification of Key Roles and Responsibilities of Individual Stakeholders in the Open Innovation Model in the Energy Sector (RQ4)

The identified relationship between stakeholders is the starting point for developing an RACI matrix of roles and responsibilities, which allows for the precise assignment of functions to individual actors in the open innovation ecosystem. This makes it possible to clearly define who is responsible for implementing a given action, who bears ultimate responsibility, who should be consulted, and who should be informed. The use of this methodology minimizes the risk of conflicts of interest, facilitates the coordination of activities, and increases the effectiveness of cooperation between science, business, the state, society, and the environment.

In order to illustrate the practical application of this methodology, an RACI matrix proposal has been developed, covering selected cooperation mechanisms in the energy sector. It covers five key areas of activity: research and development projects, public–private partnerships (PPPs), open data platforms, living labs and initiatives, and the implementation of renewable energy sources.

Table 4. Proposed role and responsibility matrix (RACI) in the open innovation model for the energy sector.

Area of Activity/Mechanism	Science	Business	State	Society	Environment
R&D projects (joint research, co-patents)	R—research implementation, knowledge transfer	A—commercialization, implementation	C—grant financing, research strategies	I—informing about research results	C—consideration of environmental impact in research
PPP partnerships (renewable energy infrastructure, investments)	C—scientific consulting, expert opinions	R—project implementation, rollout	A—regulations, coordination, public financing	I—information, beneficiaries	C—environmental impact assessment
Open data platforms (data exchange, transparency)	R—creation and sharing of knowledge bases	R—use of data for innovation	A—ensuring legal and regulatory frameworks	C—co-creation of data (e.g., citizen science)	I—inclusion in environmental reports
Living labs (microgrids, pilot projects)	C—methodological support and monitoring	R—testing and implementation of technologies	A—creating frameworks and financing pilot projects	R—active participation, testing solutions	C—environmental assessment
Implementation of renewable energy sources (wind farms, photovoltaics, hydrogen)	C—technological research and expert opinions	R—implementation of investments and deployments	A—creation of regulations and support systems	C—prosumers, local communities	R—environmental impact criteria, enforcement of eco-innovation
Education and skills development (training, academic-business programs, upskilling in green technologies )	R—development and delivery of education programs	C—cooperation in training, internships, apprenticeships	A—creation of educational strategies and certification systems	R—participation in educational programs and competence development	C—integration of pro-environmental content into educational programs
Energy monitoring and security systems (cybersecurity, network monitoring, early warning systems)	R—research into monitoring technologies and system resilience	R—implementation of technological solutions, cyber protection	A—establishing security standards, financing critical infrastructure	C—participation in energy security education programs	C—assessment of the impact of failures and crises on ecosystems

Notes: R (Responsible)—responsible for task implementation, executor; A (Accountable)—bears ultimate responsibility, decision-maker; C (Consulted)—consulted in the decision-making process; I (Informed)—informed about progress and results of activities.

shows the assignment of roles and responsibilities to individual stakeholder groups within these activities.

An analysis of the presented matrix of roles and responsibilities reveals several important patterns. Science most often plays the role of Responsible (R) in areas related to knowledge creation, technology transfer, education, and competence development. This means that its primary responsibility is to provide the substantive and human resources foundations for the energy transition.

Business plays a key role as an executor (Responsible) in the implementation and scaling of technological solutions, but at the same time it often becomes an Accountable (A) entity, especially in the area of commercialization of research results or implementation of investments in renewable energy sources. Its role emphasizes the practical dimension of open innovation and the need to translate innovation into products, services, and infrastructure.

The state dominates in the role of Accountable (A) in strategic areas such as regulation, public–private partnerships, and energy monitoring and security systems. This is due to the fact that it is the public administration that is responsible for creating the legal framework, regulatory stability, and coordination of cross-sectoral activities.

Civil society takes on the role of Responsible (R) in participatory areas, such as living labs or educational programs. The participation of citizens and local communities in innovation processes is not only an element of the democratization of the energy transition, but also a key factor in social acceptance and the long-term sustainability of innovation.

The natural environment plays a unique role—it is not a classic executive actor, but primarily performs the functions of Consulted (C) and Responsible (R) in the context of implementing eco-innovations and assessing the impact of investments. Its presence in the Quintuple Helix model reminds us that every innovation decision must also be verified in terms of its environmental impact and compliance with sustainable development goals.

The RACI matrix points to the need to harmonize roles and responsibilities in such a way as to leverage the strengths of each stakeholder: science as a source of knowledge, business as an implementer and commercializer, the state as a regulator and coordinator, society as a participant and co-creator of innovation, and the environment as a factor determining the directions of technological development.

At the same time, it should be noted that the presence of multiple entities holding the “Accountable” status, such as business and public administration within public–private partnerships, may lead to potential conflicts regarding the scope of decision-making powers, responsibility for project results, and risk distribution. In practice, these challenges are addressed through multi-level and contractual governance mechanisms. These include contractual frameworks that clearly define the hierarchy of responsibilities, joint steering committees, or stakeholder councils that mediate between public objectives (e.g., energy security, environmental protection) and private interests (e.g., profitability, return on investment).

The establishment of transparent decision-making procedures, performance-based evaluation systems, and dispute resolution mechanisms, such as arbitration panels or public oversight bodies, helps build trust and reduce coordination risks.

The collaboration of multiple actors within the innovation process inevitably involves conflicts of interest, arising from differing strategic goals, time horizons, and perceptions of risk. For example, the public sector focuses on ensuring energy security and compliance with environmental regulations, while the private sector seeks to maximize efficiency and profit. Meanwhile, the scientific community emphasizes the innovative aspect and long-term technological development, which may not always align with investors’ interests.

To mitigate the effects of these tensions, open innovation ecosystems employ conflict resolution mechanisms such as:

–

Mediation and stakeholder negotiation procedures conducted within program councils and steering committees;

–

Partnership agreements with clauses specifying the distribution of risks and benefits;

–

Arbitration and independent oversight mechanisms ensuring transparency in decision-making;

–

Strategic stakeholder mapping to identify potential areas of conflict and synergy already at the project planning stage.

Integrating such procedures into the governance structure of public–private partnerships enhances consensus-building capacity, reduces the risk of investment delays, and helps maintain trust among innovation ecosystem participants. In this context, the RACI matrix can also serve a diagnostic function, identifying areas of overlapping responsibility and indicating the need to implement multi-actor governance tools.

Taking these aspects into account increases the practical applicability of the model and enables a better understanding of the dynamics of cooperation, as well as the potential sources of conflicts and synergies within open innovation ecosystems in the energy sector.

4.5. Identification of Technological, Regulatory, Organizational, and Social Barriers in the Open Innovation Model in the Energy Sector (RQ5)

All the analyses carried out, which included the identification of cooperation mechanisms, mapping of interactions between helices, assignment of roles and responsibilities within the RACI matrix, and determination of functional links, made it possible to identify key challenges, barriers, and factors conducive to the coordination of cooperation and interests of the identified stakeholder groups in the model.

This coordination is a complex process involving both factors that support cooperation and barriers that hinder its effective implementation. For clarity, they are listed in

Table 5. Factors supporting and barriers to the coordination of stakeholder interests in the open innovation model for the energy sector.

Category	Facilitating Factors	Barriers
Technological	– The development of digitalization and open data platforms, which ensure process transparency and facilitate knowledge sharing between stakeholders. – Smart grids and the Internet of Things (IoT), which enable dynamic energy flow management and increase system flexibility. – The use of AI and big data as prediction and optimization tools that support strategic decisions in the area of energy transition.	– Lack of standardization of ICT systems, resulting in fragmentation of the ecosystem and hindering cooperation between actors. – Cybersecurity threats, which are becoming particularly relevant in decentralized energy networks. – Difficulties in integrating new technologies with existing infrastructure, which slows down the implementation of innovative solutions in practice.
Regulatory	– A stable energy and environmental policy framework (e.g., the European Green Deal and Fit for 55 in the EU), which creates a long-term vision and predictability of actions. – Financial support mechanisms in the form of grants, tax breaks, or funds (e.g., from the EU’s National Recovery and Resilience Plan) that accelerate the process of implementing innovations. – Norms and standards that promote interoperability and the harmonization of technological and environmental requirements.	– Instability of national regulations and frequent regulatory changes, which reduce the confidence of investors and businesses. – Excessive bureaucracy and complicated administrative procedures that prolong the process of applying for support. – The risk of dependence on subsidies, which may limit the motivation of entities to seek innovative solutions on their own.
Organizational	– The development of energy clusters and prosumer cooperatives that promote the integration of activities at the local and regional levels. – Intermediary institutions, such as innovation agencies or technology transfer centers, which support the flow of knowledge and resources between sectors. – Experience from international projects (e.g., Horizon Europe), which are a source of good practices and know-how in the field of cross-border cooperation.	– Conflicts of interest between large corporations and smaller entities, resulting from resource asymmetries and differences in strategic objectives. – Difficulties in coordinating many dispersed actors, especially in large-scale projects. – Asymmetry of organizational and financial resources, which may limit the real participation of smaller stakeholders in the innovation ecosystem.
Social	– Growing environmental awareness among the public, fostering acceptance of the energy transition – The development of prosumer energy, which strengthens the role of citizens as active participants in the energy market. – Participatory initiatives, such as living labs and public consultations, which increase engagement and a sense of shared responsibility.	– The NIMBY phenomenon, i.e., local opposition to infrastructure investments, despite general support for the transition. – Low level of technical competence among part of the population, hindering participation in more advanced projects. – A lack of public trust in public institutions and the business sector, which may weaken the willingness to cooperate.

, divided into four main categories: technological, regulatory, organizational, and social. This allows us to capture the specific conditions that influence the effectiveness of stakeholder integration.

The analysis indicates that the effectiveness of implementing the open innovation model in the energy sector depends largely on the balance between supporting factors and barriers in specific areas.

In terms of technology, the dominant supporting factor is the development of digitalization and tools based on artificial intelligence and big data, which increase the possibilities for predicting and optimizing energy processes [75,76,77]. At the same time, the lack of compatibility between ICT systems, combined with cybersecurity threats, remains a key challenge, slowing down the implementation process and reducing the level of security. In terms of the regulatory framework, stable policies, such as the European Green Deal [51] and Fit for 55 [52] for EU countries, ensure long-term predictability and access to financial support instruments. However, at the national level, frequent changes in regulations and complex administrative procedures are a barrier that can hamper innovative initiatives and discourage investors.

In the organizational area, the development of energy clusters and cooperatives, which integrate local resources and strengthen the energy independence of communities, stands out positively [14,78]. The transfer of experience from international projects is also a strong asset. On the other hand, the main problem remains conflicts of interest between large and small entities and difficulties in coordinating numerous and dispersed actors, which leads to the risk of fragmentation of activities.

Social factors point to the growing role of citizens in transformation processes. Increased environmental awareness, the development of prosumer energy, and participatory mechanisms encourage the active involvement of society in innovation processes [79]. Nevertheless, the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) phenomenon [80], i.e., an attitude of accepting energy transition in general but opposing specific investments in the immediate vicinity, as well as a low level of technical competence and a lack of trust in public institutions, can significantly weaken the momentum of this process.

In general, it can be observed that the favorable factors are mainly related to systemic processes and long-term trends (digitization, stable EU framework, cluster development, environmental awareness), while barriers result primarily from operational and short-term factors (lack of interoperability, bureaucracy, conflicts of interest, local opposition). This means that effective coordination of stakeholders requires not only supporting favorable conditions, but also actively minimizing barriers through regulatory, educational, and organizational measures.

It is worth noting that the open innovation mechanisms presented in Table 3 (Section 4.3) directly address the identified barriers, offering complementary pathways for their mitigation. Technological barriers, such as limited access to R&D infrastructure or a low level of technological readiness, are mitigated through institutional mechanisms, including research consortia and public–private partnerships, which facilitate resource sharing and accelerate technology transfer. Regulatory barriers are reduced through financial and regulatory mechanisms that integrate multilevel governance (e.g., national–regional platforms) and adaptive frameworks for certification, licensing, and standardization. Financial barriers are alleviated through hybrid financing systems combining public funds (e.g., Horizon Europe, Innovation Fund) with private sector investment incentives. Social barriers, such as low public trust or limited social acceptance, are addressed by participatory mechanisms—living labs and stakeholder consultations—which foster transparency and co-creation of innovation. Finally, environmental barriers, related to ecological requirements and sustainable development objectives, are mitigated by environmental and innovative mechanisms, which include ESG monitoring, life cycle assessments, and incentives for eco-innovation.

Linking these mechanisms to specific categories of barriers enables the operationalization of systemic resilience and demonstrates the model’s practical ability to reduce coordination failures and strengthen the adaptive capacity of the energy innovation ecosystem.

Table 6. Relationships between barriers and open innovation mechanisms in the energy sector.

Category of Barriers	Main Challenges	Corresponding Open Innovation Mechanisms (Based on Table 3)	Mitigating Function
Technological	Low technological readiness level (TRL), limited access to R&D infrastructure, fragmentation of the innovation ecosystem	Institutional mechanisms—research consortia, public–private partnerships, technological platforms	Facilitate resource sharing, accelerate technology transfer, strengthen interoperability and standardization
Regulatory	Complex licensing procedures, lack of harmonized standards, policy instability	Financial and regulatory mechanisms—multilevel coordination frameworks, certification systems, adaptive regulations	Increase policy coherence, reduce administrative barriers, ensure compliance with EU energy and climate frameworks
Financial	High capital costs, investment risk, limited access to financing for SMEs and start-ups	Financial and regulatory mechanisms—blended (public–private) financing, EU funds (Horizon Europe, Innovation Fund), state aid exemptions	Mobilize private capital, reduce investment risk, ensure stable long-term funding
Social	Low public acceptance, lack of trust, limited citizen engagement	Social and participatory mechanisms—living labs, stakeholder consultations, information campaigns	Increase transparency, build social legitimacy, support innovation co-creation
Environmental	Ecological risks, emission reduction requirements, biodiversity constraints	Environmental and innovative mechanisms—life cycle analysis (LCA), ESG reporting, eco-innovation incentives	Integrate sustainability criteria into innovation processes, align technologies with climate and SDG targets
Digital/Informational	Data fragmentation, cybersecurity risks, limited interoperability of energy systems	Digital and informational mechanisms—open data platforms, smart grid innovation hubs, interoperability standards	Enable data exchange, increase system transparency, improve digital resilience

presents the relationships between key categories of barriers in the energy transition and the corresponding open innovation mechanisms proposed in Table 3.

Linking specific categories of barriers to corresponding open innovation mechanisms allows for the operationalization of systemic resilience and demonstrates the model’s practical capacity to reduce coordination failures and enhance the adaptive capabilities of innovation ecosystems in the energy sector. As a result, the proposed model becomes not only an analytical tool but also a practical instrument supporting the design of public policies and energy transition strategies.

In order to deepen the analysis and better understand the dynamics of cooperation between stakeholders, a matrix for assessing the priorities and impact of individual groups within the Quintuple Helix model was developed. This tool allows for the identification of diverse perspectives in relation to key criteria such as energy security, innovation, social participation, and sustainable development. This matrix (

Table 7. Matrix for assessing the priorities and influence of stakeholders in the open innovation model for the energy sector.

Criterion	Science	Business	State	Society	Environment
Development of technological innovations	High	High	Medium	Medium	Medium
Knowledge transfer and commercialization	High	High	Medium	Low	Medium
System security and stability	Medium	High	High	Medium	High
Compliance with EU regulations and policies	Medium	Medium	High	Medium	High
Social participation and acceptance of innovation	Medium	Medium	High	High	Medium
Transparency and openness of processes (open data, consultations)	High	Medium	High	High	Medium
Sustainable development and environmental protection	Medium	Medium	High	High	High
System resilience	Medium	High	High	Medium	High
Access to financing and resources	Medium	High	High	Medium	Medium

) allows us to indicate areas of potential synergies and identify divergences of interests that need to be harmonized within an open innovation ecosystem in the energy sector. The terms High, Medium, and Low in the table reflect the relative importance that individual stakeholder groups attach to specific criteria within the open innovation ecosystem for energy. A high value indicates an area in which a given actor (stakeholder) plays a key role, has significant resources, or bears special responsibility (e.g., science and business in the development of technological innovations, the state in ensuring system stability and regulatory compliance, and the environment in matters of sustainable development). Medium indicates a significant but complementary contribution, meaning that the stakeholder is actively involved, but its activities mainly play a supporting or complementary role in relation to other entities. A low value, on the other hand, signals a limited impact on a given criterion—in this case, the role of the stakeholder is more about receiving the effects of other actors’ actions than actively shaping them. Such gradations allow us to capture not only the hierarchy of priorities, but also possible asymmetries in terms of responsibility and influence, which in practice require coordination and balancing within the open innovation model.

The matrix developed to assess the priorities and influence of stakeholders in the open innovation model for the energy sector shows that different stakeholder groups assign different priorities to key criteria. This reflects the diverse interests and resources that individual stakeholders bring to the open innovation ecosystem.

In terms of energy security, the state plays the most important role, as it is responsible for creating regulatory and strategic frameworks and ensuring the stability of energy supplies at affordable prices, taking into account environmental issues. Business and the scientific sector support this process through the development and implementation of new technologies, while society and the environment remain primarily the beneficiaries of a stable system whose resilience is crucial in the long term.

Science and business play the most important role in innovation. Research institutions provide new knowledge, research results, and technologies, while companies are responsible for the commercialization, implementation, and scaling of solutions. The state plays a supporting role through financial and regulatory instruments and research and development programs. Society and the environment, on the other hand, are increasingly inspiring innovation, as they set new needs and constraints, such as growing expectations for emission reductions or participation in prosumer energy.

In the case of social participation, civil society is a key player. Its involvement in consultation processes, local initiatives, and living lab projects determines the level of acceptance for investments and innovations in the energy sector. The state supports this process through formal and legal mechanisms, such as prosumer programs, while science and business are responsible for knowledge transfer and providing tools that enable citizens to participate in the transition in a meaningful way.

In terms of sustainable development, the most important factor is the natural environment, which is treated as a full stakeholder in the Quintuple Helix model. It is the need to protect ecosystems, reduce emissions, and adapt to climate change that determines the direction of energy innovation. In line with the idea of sustainable development, as formulated in the Brundtland Report [81], contemporary actions in the field of energy transition should be designed in such a way as to meet the needs of present societies without compromising the ability of future generations to use natural resources and safe energy systems. The literature emphasizes that in the context of energy, this means combining technological innovation with measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, and integrate renewable energy sources [82,83,84,85]. In this sense, open innovation cannot be treated solely as an instrument for increasing economic efficiency, but as a tool for shaping a fair and long-term stable energy order, in which the priority is to strike a balance between economic development, social welfare, and environmental protection [41,86].

The state acts as a regulator and initiator of climate and energy policies, business as an investor and implementer of environmentally friendly solutions, science as a provider of knowledge and technology, while society becomes a catalyst for change through growing environmental awareness and social pressure for transformation.

The proposed matrix shows that synergy in the open innovation model results from the complementary roles of individual stakeholders. Science and research institutions provide innovative momentum by generating knowledge and technology, business is responsible for implementing and scaling solutions, the state provides a regulatory and strategic framework, society contributes acceptance and legitimization of processes, while the environment and nature act as a factor forcing actions to be focused on long-term goals and in line with the principles of sustainable development.

At the same time, this analysis reveals potential areas of conflict, including tension between the market logic of businesses and environmental requirements, or discrepancies between the interests of the state and social expectations. Harmonizing these requires not only institutional and regulatory mechanisms, but also constant monitoring of the effectiveness and balance of the innovation ecosystem.

The analysis of data presented in Table 6 also indicates that the coexistence of divergent priorities among stakeholder groups, for example, energy security emphasized by the state, innovation and profitability preferred by the business sector, and sustainable development highlighted by scientific and environmental entities, generates potential tensions and trade-offs that must be appropriately managed within the open innovation ecosystem. Such discrepancies are inevitable in the context of a multi-actor energy transition and require negotiation and coordination mechanisms rather than a hierarchical management model.

The proposed model addresses these challenges by introducing a three-level approach to priority harmonization, which includes:

–

Strategic alignment—implemented through joint roadmaps, policy–industry dialogues, and consultative platforms that connect the state’s long-term energy goals with market needs and innovation priorities;

–

Operational coordination—ensured through tools such as the RACI matrix, cross-sector steering committees, and partnership agreements defining the distribution of responsibilities, risks, and benefits;

–

Relational alignment—supported by stakeholder engagement mechanisms, including living labs, social councils, and participatory consultation processes that build trust and enhance transparency.

Within this framework, negotiation and mediation mechanisms, such as stakeholder councils, arbitration panels, or benefit-sharing clauses, serve as tools for balancing conflicting interests and fostering consensus-building. The iterative nature of these processes enables the continuous recalibration of goals, transforming potential conflicts into opportunities for knowledge co-creation and systemic learning.

Consequently, the matrix not only reveals asymmetries in the influence and priorities of stakeholders, but also serves as a practical diagnostic tool, allowing for the prediction of potential areas of dispute and the design of strategies for mitigating and integrating interests. Such a systemic approach strengthens the model’s capacity to transform stakeholder diversity into a source of resilience and innovation synergy within the energy sector.

To enable monitoring of the degree of this synergy and the effectiveness of cooperation among the model’s actors, it is necessary to apply a set of Key Performance Indicators. These indicators make it possible to conduct a multidimensional assessment of the level of stakeholder integration, the efficiency of cooperation mechanisms, and the extent to which the model simultaneously supports innovation, energy system resilience, environmental objectives, and social needs.

Accordingly, the following section of the article presents a proposed set of KPIs developed for the open innovation model in the energy sector.

4.6. KPIs for Assessing the Effectiveness of the Open Innovation Model in the Energy Sector (RQ6)

After all the research had been carried out, including the identification of stakeholders and their roles, mapping of interactions between helices, recognition of cooperation mechanisms, assignment of responsibilities within the RACI matrix, and analysis of enabling factors and barriers, the next step was to develop a set of indicators to measure and evaluate the processes under study. The aim of defining them was to create a tool for measuring the effectiveness and evaluating the open innovation model in the energy sector.

The use of KPIs is crucial because it allows the conceptual framework of the model to be translated into measurable and monitorable results. Thanks to them, it is possible not only to track progress in the implementation of innovations on an ongoing basis, but also to compare the effectiveness of activities between different projects, countries, or segments of the energy market. KPIs make it possible to verify whether the adopted cooperation mechanisms actually lead to the expected results in the areas of innovation, energy security, and sustainable development.

Table 8 presents a proposal for KPIs that allow the effectiveness of the developed open innovation model in the energy sector to be assessed. In order to capture the complex and multidimensional nature of the energy transition, the indicators have been grouped into five categories corresponding to key areas of the innovation ecosystem:

(1)

Innovation and technology transfer—indicators reflecting the dynamics of research and development processes, cooperation between science and business, the pace of commercialization of innovation, and the absorption of new technologies in the sector.

(2)

Energy security—measures related to source diversification, supply stability, network resilience, and infrastructure risk minimization.

(3)

System resilience—indicators reflecting the ability of the innovation ecosystem to adapt in the face of disruptions and crises (geopolitical, economic, technological).

(4)

Environment and sustainable development—indicators determining the impact of innovation on emission reduction, energy efficiency, biodiversity protection, and the implementation of circular economy principles.

(5)

Society and participation—measures relating to social acceptance, citizen participation in innovation processes, the development of prosumer energy, and the growth of environmental awareness.

Table 8. Proposed set of key KPIs for the open innovation model in the energy sector.

Category	Proposed KPIs	Purpose of Measurement	Key Stakeholders
Innovation and technology transfer	– Number of joint R&D projects – Number of co-patents and licenses – Number of spin-offs and academic start-ups – Share of R&D expenditure in the revenues of energy companies – Average time from technology development to market implementation – Number of patent applications in the field of renewable energy sources and digitization – Degree of practical application of research results (TRL)	Assessment of innovation dynamics and the effectiveness of science-business cooperation	Science, Business, State
Energy security	– SAIDI/SAIFI indicators – Share of domestic energy sources in the energy mix, – Level of supply diversification (Herfindahl–Hirschman Index) – System capacity reserves (capacity margin) – Share of decentralized energy sources in the mix – Number of incidents disrupting continuity of supply – Level of energy self-sufficiency of regions/countries	Monitoring the stability of energy supply and infrastructure resilience	State, Business, Society
System resilience	– Response time to disruptions and failures – Mean time to recovery after a crisis – Number of business continuity plans (BCPs) implemented – Share of energy storage facilities in the system balance – Level of network redundancy and flexibility – Ability to integrate prosumers and microgrids – Number of projects testing crisis scenarios	Assessment of the system’s ability to adapt and recover in crisis situations	State, Science, Business
Environment and sustainable development	– CO2 emission reduction (%) – Reduction in other greenhouse gases (%) – Number of circular economy projects – Number of eco-innovations implemented in the energy sector – ESG indicators reported by energy companies – Level of recycling of energy components (e.g., wind turbines, batteries) – Number of projects supporting adaptation to climate change	Measurement of the impact of innovation on climate and environmental goals	Environment, State, Science, Business, Society
Society and participation	– Number of prosumers – Number of local energy cooperatives and clusters – citizen participation in living labs – Number of public consultations in energy projects – Number of local energy initiatives (e.g., clusters, cooperatives) – Level of public acceptance for projects (polls, NIMBY protests) – Index of energy and environmental awareness among the public (surveys) – Number of NGOs involved in the transition – Degree of public participation in citizen science projects	Assessment of the level of public involvement and legitimacy of energy transition processes	Society, State, Business, Science

Table 8. Proposed set of key KPIs for the open innovation model in the energy sector.

Category	Proposed KPIs	Purpose of Measurement	Key Stakeholders
Innovation and technology transfer	– Number of joint R&D projects – Number of co-patents and licenses – Number of spin-offs and academic start-ups – Share of R&D expenditure in the revenues of energy companies – Average time from technology development to market implementation – Number of patent applications in the field of renewable energy sources and digitization – Degree of practical application of research results (TRL)	Assessment of innovation dynamics and the effectiveness of science-business cooperation	Science, Business, State
Energy security	– SAIDI/SAIFI indicators – Share of domestic energy sources in the energy mix, – Level of supply diversification (Herfindahl–Hirschman Index) – System capacity reserves (capacity margin) – Share of decentralized energy sources in the mix – Number of incidents disrupting continuity of supply – Level of energy self-sufficiency of regions/countries	Monitoring the stability of energy supply and infrastructure resilience	State, Business, Society
System resilience	– Response time to disruptions and failures – Mean time to recovery after a crisis – Number of business continuity plans (BCPs) implemented – Share of energy storage facilities in the system balance – Level of network redundancy and flexibility – Ability to integrate prosumers and microgrids – Number of projects testing crisis scenarios	Assessment of the system’s ability to adapt and recover in crisis situations	State, Science, Business
Environment and sustainable development	– CO2 emission reduction (%) – Reduction in other greenhouse gases (%) – Number of circular economy projects – Number of eco-innovations implemented in the energy sector – ESG indicators reported by energy companies – Level of recycling of energy components (e.g., wind turbines, batteries) – Number of projects supporting adaptation to climate change	Measurement of the impact of innovation on climate and environmental goals	Environment, State, Science, Business, Society
Society and participation	– Number of prosumers – Number of local energy cooperatives and clusters – citizen participation in living labs – Number of public consultations in energy projects – Number of local energy initiatives (e.g., clusters, cooperatives) – Level of public acceptance for projects (polls, NIMBY protests) – Index of energy and environmental awareness among the public (surveys) – Number of NGOs involved in the transition – Degree of public participation in citizen science projects	Assessment of the level of public involvement and legitimacy of energy transition processes	Society, State, Business, Science

The indicators presented in Table 8 show the multidimensional nature of assessing the effectiveness of the open innovation model in the energy sector. Their selection allows not only to measure progress in the area of generating and implementing innovation, but also to monitor whether the transformation process is taking place in a sustainable, safe, and resilient manner. On the one hand, these indicators cover traditional dimensions of innovation effectiveness, such as the number of R&D projects, co-patents, or the time to commercialization of technologies, and on the other hand, they extend the assessment to include social, environmental, and systemic aspects. This has resulted in a tool that enables a comprehensive evaluation that goes beyond a purely technological perspective.

The proposed indicators can also serve an integrating function: they bring together different stakeholder groups by identifying measures that are relevant to science and business as well as to the state, society, and the environment. This approach promotes the harmonization of interests, as it allows for the simultaneous consideration of market, regulatory, social, and environmental logic. In practice, this means that the open innovation model in the energy sector can be assessed not only in terms of the number of technological solutions implemented, but also in terms of their social acceptance, environmental impact, and ability to strengthen energy security.

5. Discussion

The conceptual model of open innovation (OI) for the energy sector presented in this paper is a significant contribution to the development of research on cooperation and coordination between stakeholders in the green transition process. Previous innovation models, such as Triple Helix [29], focused mainly on the relationships between science, business, and the state. Their extensions, Quadruple Helix and Quintuple Helix, add civil society and the natural environment, extending the perspective of innovation to social and ecological dimensions [30,40,41,86]. However, the literature still lacks a coherent analytical framework that would adapt these models to the specific nature of the energy sector, where climate, economic, and system security goals are pursued in parallel. The conceptual assumptions presented in this article are consistent with practical initiatives implemented under the Horizon Europe program [53], such as Hydrogen Valleys [68], Smart Grid Demonstrators [87], and Renewable Energy Clusters [88], which reflect and confirm the validity of the Quintuple Helix model assumptions through cross-sectoral collaboration involving science, business, public administration, society, and the natural environment.

The results of the analyses indicate that the effectiveness of open innovation in the energy sector cannot be considered solely in technological terms. The ability to create dynamic functional links between five stakeholder groups (science, business, government, society, and the natural environment) is of key importance. Each of these actors brings distinct competencies to the system: science provides knowledge, forecasts, and innovation; business is responsible for the implementation and commercialization of solutions; the state sets the regulatory framework and ensures institutional stability; society supports public acceptance and develops prosumer energy; and the natural environment is a factor forcing the direction of transformation and acts as a boundary for the system. Only their synergistic interaction enables the effective implementation of the green transition and the strengthening of the sector’s resilience.

The identified links between stakeholders are not static, they form a dynamic network of interactions in which the flow of knowledge, technology, and resources takes place in many directions. In this context, cooperation mechanisms that determine how stakeholders can effectively integrate their activities are of particular importance. Analyses show that, in addition to traditional forms such as research and industry consortia or public–private partnerships, digital and social mechanisms are playing an increasingly important role, including open data platforms, living labs [89,90], citizen science projects [91], and hackathons [92,93], which open up the innovation process to a wider group of participants. The concept of “democratization of innovation” [94] and the development of crowdsourcing [95,96] emphasize the importance of active participation by users and communities in generating new solutions. At the same time, regulatory and environmental mechanisms that ensure compliance with climate and energy policies and sustainable development guidelines are also important.

The coexistence and interpenetration of these mechanisms make the open innovation model in the energy sector a systemic solution capable not only of accelerating the implementation of technological innovations, but also of strengthening social acceptance, institutional stability, and the long-term resilience of the energy system.

The proposed model also provides a useful analytical perspective that captures the dual nature of the modern energy transition. It has both a proactive dimension, oriented toward long-term climate goals and sustainable development, and a reactive dimension, stemming from the need to respond to current geopolitical threats and energy security crises [97,98,99]. The stakeholder architecture within the open innovation model makes it possible to maintain a balance between these two dimensions through the distribution of complementary functions. Science and the environment support the proactive dimension through research, technology development, and ecosystem protection efforts, while business and public administration primarily implement the reactive dimension, ensuring supply stability, investment capacity, and regulatory resilience. Civil society, through participatory and prosumer mechanisms, acts as a link between these logics, strengthening social acceptance and management flexibility. In this sense, the open innovation model becomes not only a collaboration platform but also a coordination mechanism that integrates the anticipatory and reactive dimensions of the energy transition, aligning long-term sustainable development goals with the need to ensure the sector’s resilience under geopolitical instability [100].

From a comparative perspective, however, this balance takes different forms depending on the structure and logic of national energy systems, which determine how the open innovation model is implemented in practice.

Although the proposed model is universal in nature, its application should take into account the structural and institutional conditions of national energy systems. In highly centralized systems, such as those in France or the Czech Republic, the coordination of innovation processes is largely steered by the state and major energy corporations (e.g., EDF, ČEZ). Such an approach supports strategic policy alignment, infrastructure integration, and long-term investment planning [101,102], but may limit bottom-up initiatives and slow the diffusion of social innovations. In contrast, in more liberal and decentralized systems, such as those in Germany, Denmark, or the Netherlands, innovation diffusion is based on the activity of regional clusters, local grid operators, and prosumer energy communities [103,104,105]. This model promotes technological diversity, flexibility, and rapid deployment of low-emission solutions, but simultaneously generates challenges in coordination, regulatory stability, and systemic risk management. An intermediate approach can be observed in Spain and Italy, where the state retains a strategic role in planning but simultaneously supports the development of local innovation hubs and public–private partnerships within programs such as Hydrogen Valleys or Mission Innovation [69].

Therefore, the implementation of the open innovation model should be based on maintaining a balance between hierarchical management and distributed processes, while adapting cooperation mechanisms to the prevailing institutional, regulatory, and market context. Only such an approach allows for the effective use of the synergistic potential of diverse actors operating within different models of energy governance.

In the developed model, the operationalization of cooperation through the introduction of the RACI matrix is very important. This allowed for the precise assignment of roles (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) to individual stakeholders, which reduces the risk of conflicts and duplication of activities, while facilitating the coordination of complex multilateral projects. As emphasized in [20,22,106], the lack of a clear division of responsibilities is one of the main barriers to the effectiveness of open innovation.

The development of a RACI matrix for the energy model, as well as a matrix for assessing the priorities and impact of stakeholders in the open innovation model for the energy sector, should be considered a significant and innovative methodological contribution. The combination of these tools not only allows for the precise assignment of roles and responsibilities to individual actors, but also captures the hierarchy of values, interests, and impacts that different groups bring to the innovation process. As a result, it becomes possible to both improve the coordination of activities in the ecosystem and identify potential sources of synergy or conflict, which is a key challenge noted in the literature on open innovation.

The proposed tools are complemented by a set of key performance indicators that enable the measurement of actions important for assessing the effectiveness of the model. The literature emphasizes that one of the main problems with the concept of open innovation is the lack of operationalization that would allow assessing the extent to which the implemented mechanisms actually contribute to improving the innovativeness and resilience of systems [21,28]. The proposed indicators fill this gap by translating abstract principles of cooperation into specific metrics whose changes can be monitored over time.

In the context of the energy sector, these indicators play a special role because they enable a balanced assessment of technological, social, environmental, and systemic effects. For example, the number of innovations implemented or the level of R&D investment can be linked to science and business; the share of renewable energy and emission reductions—to the environment; the level of public acceptance and the development of prosumer energy—to society; and regulatory stability and diversification of energy sources with government activity. As a result, these indicators serve as a “common language” for all stakeholders, enabling the comparison of effects and the identification of areas requiring correction. They allow not only current effectiveness to be measured, but also the scalability of innovation and the resilience of energy systems to geopolitical crises and economic. This means that the open innovation model is not limited to supporting innovation itself, but becomes a tool for assessing the long-term stability and adaptability of the entire sector. This approach is in line with the postulates presented in the literature, which assume that open innovation is not only a concept of innovation management, but also a mechanism supporting sustainable development and system security [107,108,109,110,111].

Thanks to the tools presented, including the RACI matrix, the stakeholder priority and impact assessment matrix, and a set of indicators, the open innovation model for the energy sector becomes comprehensive and multidimensional. Thanks to these elements, it plays a dual role: on the one hand, it provides a research framework for in-depth analysis of interactions, roles, and cooperation mechanisms in the innovation ecosystem, and on the other hand, it has an application dimension, as it provides practical tools to support the design of public policies, business, and social initiatives. In this way, the proposed model not only expands the theoretical body of knowledge on open innovation, but also responds to practical needs, enabling more effective implementation of the green transition and strengthening energy security in the context of dynamic technological and geopolitical changes. This approach is in line with the growing need to combine the perspectives of innovation, sustainable development, and energy security within a single coherent concept of systemic change management.

6. Conclusions, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research

The research conducted has enabled the development of a conceptual open innovation model for the energy sector that integrates five helices (science, business, government, society, and the natural environment) into a coherent framework for cooperation. This model makes a significant methodological contribution through the use of tools such as the RACI matrix, the stakeholder priority and impact assessment matrix, and a set of indicators that enable a multidimensional assessment of the effectiveness, scalability, and resilience of the innovation ecosystem.

The analyses carried out have led to a number of conclusions regarding the substantive, methodological, and application dimensions of the proposed open innovation model for the energy sector.

Firstly, the effectiveness of open innovation in this sector cannot be viewed solely through the prism of technological development. The ability to build dynamic functional links between five stakeholder groups—science, business, the state, society, and the natural environment—is of key importance. Each of these groups contributes separate resources and competencies, which only when synergistically aggregated enable the effective implementation of the energy transition process. The inclusion of the environment as a full-fledged actor in the innovation ecosystem allows innovations to be linked to sustainable development goals and gives them a strategic pro-ecological dimension.

From a methodological point of view, an important contribution of this work is the use of the RACI matrix, which allows for the unambiguous assignment of roles and responsibilities to individual stakeholders. The development of this matrix for the IO model in the energy sector increases the transparency of innovation processes and facilitates the coordination of activities. This approach is complemented by a matrix for assessing the priorities and influence of stakeholders, which allows for capturing the diverse perspectives and value hierarchies of individual actors. Together, these two tools form a solid methodological basis for better management of cooperation within an open energy ecosystem.

Another important achievement of the work is the proposal of a proprietary set of indicators that allow for measuring and assessing the effectiveness, scalability, and resilience of the energy system in conditions of open innovation. Their selection is not limited to the technological dimension, but also covers social, environmental, and system security aspects. This makes it possible to conduct a holistic assessment of energy transition processes, taking into account not only technical results, but also the quality of stakeholder cooperation, the level of social acceptance, and the impact on the natural environment. This approach responds to the growing demand for assessment methods that combine innovation with social and environmental responsibility.

At the same time, certain limitations of this study should be acknowledged. The proposed model has a conceptual character and was developed primarily based on a comprehensive literature review. Therefore, future research, which will constitute a continuation of this study, should focus on the empirical verification of the proposed model, as well as on the assessment of the effectiveness of the identified cooperation mechanisms among stakeholders in the energy sector. An important direction for further analyses will also be the practical application of the developed set of Key Performance Indicators to measure the efficiency, effectiveness, and scalability of innovation processes in the context of the green transition and energy security.

Moreover, subsequent research should aim to expand the model by incorporating financial and geopolitical perspectives, which are increasingly relevant in the face of global energy crises and technological competition. Such empirical studies will make it possible not only to validate and refine the theoretical framework but also to adapt it to practical conditions, thus enhancing its usefulness for managing innovation and transformation processes in the energy sector.

A detailed empirical validation of the proposed open innovation model could be conducted within a multi-stage research project combining qualitative and quantitative methods. In the first phase, comparative case studies could be applied to analyze energy ecosystems or regions with varying levels of innovation maturity and renewable energy integration (e.g., Denmark, Germany, Poland, and Spain), in order to identify how the mechanisms of the Quintuple Helix model operate in practice across different policy, technological, and institutional contexts. The second phase could employ Social Network Analysis (SNA) to map and quantitatively assess the structure and dynamics of cooperation between stakeholders in the energy sector, including research institutions, companies, government bodies, civil society organizations, and environmental agencies, focusing on the intensity, reciprocity, and centrality of their interactions. In the third phase, surveys and expert interviews could be conducted to evaluate the perceived effectiveness of cooperation mechanisms and Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) related to open innovation, such as coordination efficiency, knowledge transfer capacity, regulatory adaptability, and societal engagement. The fourth phase could include a longitudinal pilot implementation of the model in selected regional or national energy clusters (e.g., Hydrogen Valleys, Smart Grid Innovation Hubs), enabling the observation of changes in stakeholder collaboration, technological diffusion, and environmental outcomes over time. Such a mixed-method approach would ensure that the proposed Quintuple Helix model for open innovation in the energy sector is not only conceptually coherent but also empirically validated and operationally applicable as a practical tool for managing complex, multi-actor innovation ecosystems that underpin the green transition and energy security.

Despite its limitations, the proposed open innovation model for the energy sector is significant and positive, as it combines a theoretical perspective with an applied one, offering tools that support both the understanding and practical management of innovation processes in the context of the green transition. Its undoubted advantage is the integration of the five helices into a coherent analytical framework, the precise assignment of roles and responsibilities, the expansion of the catalog of cooperation mechanisms, and the inclusion of the environment as a strategic criterion. As a result, this model can become a point of reference for both researchers and practitioners who are looking for universal tools to assess industry innovation.