Non-Profit Organizations as Facilitators of the Sustainable Social Innovation of Firms: An Italian Case Study
Abstract
:1. Introduction
Theoretical Background
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case Study: The NPO ELIS
2.2. Research Design
2.3. Participants
2.3.1. Quantitative Method
2.3.2. Qualitative Method
2.4. Instruments and Procedure
2.4.1. Quantitative Method
2.4.2. Qualitative Method
2.5. Data Analysis
2.5.1. Quantitative Method
2.5.2. Qualitative Method
3. Results
3.1. Employees’ Viewpoints: The Determinants of OI from the Quantitative Analysis
3.2. Managers’ Viewpoints: OI Management Strategies and the Pivotal Role of Values from the Qualitative Analysis
3.2.1. Contribution to the Development of OI in the Past Three Years
- Process innovation and its effect on the other types of innovation
- Marketing and product innovation
- Organizational innovation
3.2.2. Evaluation Process of External Ideas
3.2.3. Skills and Values for an Effective OI Management
- Skills
- Values
4. Discussion
4.1. Implication of the Study
4.2. Limitation and Future Research
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A. Survey Instrument
Appendix A.1. Socio-Demographic Information
1. Age: | |
2. Gender: Male □, Female □ | |
3. Education | |
□ Professional qualification | □ High school |
□ Bachelor degree | □ Master’s degree |
□ PhD | □ Other |
4. Organizational unit in which you operate | |
□ Radical innovation | □ Management training |
□ Consulting and labs/Digital University | □ Professional schools |
□ Specialized/continuing technical training | □ ONG and Sustainability |
□ Digital Industry | □ Administration and support |
□ Other |
Appendix A.2. Organization and Innovation in Elis
Code | Questions | Rating Scale |
---|---|---|
Innovation Types | ||
IN1 | New methods of work organization aimed at decentralizing the decision-making process and improving the division of responsibilities | 5-point rating scale of agreement (from 1 = not at all to 5 = completely agree) |
IN2 | New business consortium’ practices | |
IN3 | New organizational strategies in public relations with other companies or institutions | |
IN4 | Significant changes in the characteristics and communication of products/services | |
IN5 | Adoption of new methods of advertising promotion | |
IN6 | Adoption of new pricing policies for products/services | |
IN7 | Be the first Italian operator to launch a new product/service | |
IN8 | Entering a new market for ELIS (where other operators are already active) | |
IN9 | New (or significantly improved) “production support” activities | |
IN10 | External sources systems of innovative skills/methodologies (or significantly improved) | |
IN11 | New supply processes (or significantly improved) | |
Technologies used for promoting open innovation | ||
T1 | ELIS manages the technologies used and replaces the obsolete technologies | |
T2 | ELIS identifies, evaluates, and promptly acquires technologies for service and/or process innovation | |
T3 | ELIS promotes digital innovation adoption in all its working areas | |
T4 | ELIS uses digital technologies (inside and outside the consortium) to support OI | |
T5 | ELIS uses the necessary technologies to carry out its working activities | |
Funding dedicated to open innovation | ||
F1 | ELIS plans and uses financial resources (internal and external) to support innovation as an integral part of the business planning | |
F2 | ELIS allocates adequate financial resources, accessing external, public, or other financial fundings | |
F3 | ELIS allocates adequate internal financial resources to innovation plans | |
F4 | ELIS manages the financial risk of innovative projects and evaluates the effectiveness of the investments made | |
Barriers to implementing open innovation | ||
B1 | Lack of external financial funding | |
B2 | Difficulty in accessing public subsidies and other forms of financial subsidies for innovation | |
B3 | Lack of internal financial funding | |
B4 | Lack of qualified personnel | |
B5 | Lack of good ideas to innovate | |
B6 | Lack of partner with which to cooperate | |
B7 | Strong competitiveness on the market | |
B8 | Unstable demand of innovative products and services | |
Creation of an innovative work environment | ||
W1 | ELIS developed an environment conducive to creativity and cooperation | |
W2 | ELIS developed a set of initiatives, incentives, and rewards to encourage its employees toward OI |
Appendix A.3. Organizational Culture
Code | Questions | Rating Scale |
---|---|---|
COB1 | ELIS give support to its customers to meet their needs and to solve their problems | 5-point rating scale of agreement (from 1 = not at all to 5 = completely agree) |
COB2 | Employees look for new ways to better serve customers and students | |
COB3 | Policies and procedures help employees to provide the service that our customers want and need | |
COB4 | Customers’ problems are satisfactorily solved | |
COB5 | All employees are aware of and understand the consortium’s objectives and priorities | |
COB6 | All managers work together as a team to achieve positive results for the consortium | |
COB7 | Employees and teams have clearly defined goals that are in line with the ELIS mission and strategy | |
COB8 | Employees and teams collaborate on the definition of specific objectives of the unit to which they belong | |
COB9 | Managers constantly stimulate employees to have dialogue with external interlocutors | |
COB10 | Managers involve external institutions in the design phase of new products/services | |
COB11 | Managers create a stable network of external “interpreters” with respect to the future of the market/products/services in which ELIS operates | |
COB12 | Managers question/substitute products–services that are reported as inadequate and/or attractive |
Appendix B. The Semi-Structured Interview
Culture and Organizational Behavior for Innovation Let’s discover together ELIS’s propensity for innovation and, in particular, for open innovation |
1. Can you describe what types of tasks you are called upon to perform in innovation management at ELIS? |
2. Can you describe the THREE most significant innovations (specifying whether it is product, process, or market innovation) that you have created or to which you have significantly contributed in the last three years? |
3. How many of these innovations were the result of open innovation, i.e., including ideas from subjects outside the ELIS? |
4. How does the process of evaluating ideas from outside the organization take place? For example, is there a way to collect and evaluate them, how they contribute in the creation of new products, etc.? |
5. What are the aspects of the organizational culture of ELIS that most favor the introduction of open innovation? Example: organizational tools, structured processes, leadership style, etc. |
6. What are the organizational barriers and/or hindering factors? |
7. If you had to choose a person who could fill your role in the future, what personal characteristics would you look for? Here are some examples: empathy, extroversion, self-efficacy, ability to take risks, ability to manage uncertainty |
8. Again, in choosing a person for your role, what values would allow them to work better? Here are some examples: equity, humility, promotion of diversity, contribution to the common good, cohesion/unity, etc. |
9. Are there other characteristic aspects of the way of innovating at ELIS that you would like to tell us about? |
Thanks for your cooperation. |
References
- García-González, A.; Ramírez-Montoya, M.S. Systematic mapping of scientific production on open innovation (2015–2018): Opportunities for sustainable training environments. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hall, J.; Vredenburg, H. The Challenges of Innovating for Sustainable Development. MIT Sloan Managment Review 2003. Available online: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-challenges-of-innovating-for-sustainable-development/ (accessed on 9 February 2023).
- Mion, G.; Baratta, R.; Bonfanti, A.; Baroni, S. Drivers of social innovation in disability services for inclusion: A focus on social farming in nonprofit organizations. TQM J. 2022. ahead of print. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schaltegger, S.; Burritt, R. Business cases and corporate engagement with sustainability: Differentiating ethical motivations. J. Bus. Ethics 2018, 147, 241–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schönborn, G.; Berlin, C.; Pinzone, M.; Hanisch, C.; Georgoulias, K.; Lanz, M. Why social sustainability counts: The impact of corporate social sustainability culture on financial success. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2019, 17, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bifulco, L. Urban welfare and social innovation in Italy. Soc. Work. Soc. 2018, 16, 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Santoro, G.; Ferraris, A.; Vrontis, D. Open social innovation: Towards a refined definition looking to actors and processes. Sinergie Ital. J. Manag. 2018, 36, 25–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chesbrough, H.; Bogers, M. Explicating Open Innovation: Clarifying an Emerging Paradigm for Understanding Innovation. In New Frontiers in Open Innovation; Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W.W.J., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2014; pp. 3–28. [Google Scholar]
- Chesbrough, H.; Crowther, A.K. Beyond high tech: Early adopters of open innovation in other industries. RD Manag. 2006, 36, 229–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurniawati, A.; Sunaryo, I.; Wiratmadja, I.I.; Irianto, D. Sustainability-Oriented Open Innovation: A Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Perspective. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex 2022, 8, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, Y.; Chang, S.; Youn, S.J. The effect of knowledge absorptive capacity on social ventures’ performance. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2021, 8, 1929032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murphy, D.; Bendell, J. Getting engaged: Business-NGO relations in sustainable development. In Earthscan Reader in Business and Sustainable Development; Welford, R., Starkey, R., Eds.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2001; pp. 288–312. [Google Scholar]
- Díaz-Perdomo, Y.; Álvarez-González, L.I.; Sanzo-Pérez, M.J. A Way to Boost the Impact of Business on 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goals: Co-creation With Non-profits for Social Innovation. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 719907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, J.M.; Mortara, L.; Minshall, T.H.W. Dynamic capabilities and economic crises: Has openness enhanced a firm’s performance in an economic downturn? Ind. Corp. Change 2018, 27, 49–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, J.; Mortara, L.; Minshall, T.H.W. The effects of open innovation on firm performance: A capacity approach. Sci. Technol. Innov. Policy Rev. 2013, 4, 74–93. [Google Scholar]
- Rayna, T.; Striukova, L. Open social innovation dynamics and impact: Exploratory study of a fab lab network. RD Manag. 2019, 49, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eppinger, E. How Open Innovation Practices Deliver Societal Benefits. Sustainability 2021, 13, 1431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahn, J.M.; Roijakkers, N.; Fini, R.; Mortara, L. Leveraging open innovation to improve society: Past achievements and future trajectories. RD Manag. 2019, 49, 267–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spithoven, A.; Clarysse, B.; Knockaert, M. Building absorptive capacity to organise inbound open innovation in traditional industries. Technovation 2011, 31, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shin, K.; Kim, E.; Jeong, E.S. Structural relationship and influence between open innovation capacities and performances. Sustainbility 2018, 10, 2787. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Oliveira, L.S.; Echeveste, M.E.S.; Cortimiglia, M.N.; Gonçalves, C.G.C. Analysis of determinants for Open Innovation implementation in Regional Innovation Systems. RAI Rev. Adm. Inovação 2017, 14, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bigliardi, B.; Ferraro, G.; Filippelli, S.; Galati, F. The past, present and future of open innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 2020, 24, 1130–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lin, H.; Zeng, S.; Liu, H.; Li, C. Bridging the gaps or fecklessness? A moderated mediating examination of intermediaries’ effects on corporate innovation. Technovation 2020, 94–95, 102018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agogué, M.; Berthet, E.; Fredberg, T.; Le Masson, P.; Segrestin, B.; Stoetzel, M.; Wiener, M.; Yström, A. Explicating the role of innovation intermediaries in the “unknown”: A contingency approach. J. Strateg. Manag. 2017, 10, 19–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Howells, J. Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res. Policy 2006, 35, 715–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kant, M.; Kanda, W. Innovation intermediaries: What does it take to survive over time? J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 911–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Holmes, S.; Smart, P. Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit engagements: A corporate social responsibility perspective. RD Manag. 2009, 39, 394–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Slatten, L.A.; Bendickson, J.S.; Diamond, M.; McDowell, W.C. Staffing of small nonprofit organizations: A model for retaining employees. J. Innov. Knowl. 2021, 6, 50–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bausch, M. Non-profit Organizations as Developers and Drivers of Innovation: An Exploration of the Googly-Eyed Garbage Gobbler. Master’s Thesis, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Pelagidis, T.; Kriemadis, T. Organizational Culture in the Greek Science and Technology Parks: Implications for Human Resource Management. In Proceedings of the 46th Congress of the European Regional Science Association: “Enlargement, Southern Europe and the Mediterranean”, Volos, Greece, 30 August–3 September 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Hjalmarsson, A.; Johannesson, P.; Juell-Skielse, G.; Rudmark, D. Beyond innovation contests: A framework of barriers to open innovation of digital services. In Proceedings of the Twenty Second European Conference on Information Systems, Tel Aviv, Israel, 9–11 June 2014; pp. 1–15. [Google Scholar]
- Savitskaya, I.; Salmi, P.; Torkkeli, M. Barriers to open innovation: Case China. J. Technol. Manag. Innov. 2010, 5, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Crupi, A.; Del Sarto, N.; Di Minin, A.; Phaal, R.; Piccaluga, A. Open innovation environments as knowledge sharing enablers: The case of strategic technology and innovative management consortium. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 25, 1263–1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Manso, G. Creating incentives for innovation. Calif. Manag. Rev. 2017, 60, 18–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Riordan, C.M.; Vandenberg, R.J.; Richardson, H.A. Employee involvement climate and organizational effectiveness. Hum. Resour. Manag. 2005, 44, 471–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naqshbandi, M.M.; Tabche, I.; Choudhary, N. Managing open innovation. The roles of empowering leadership and employee involvement climate. Manag. Decis. 2019, 57, 703–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hauser, O.P.; Linos, E.; Rogers, T. Innovation with field experiments: Studying organizational behaviors in actual organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 2017, 37, 185–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, S.K.; Gupta, S.; Busso, D.; Kamboj, S. Top management knowledge value, knowledge sharing practices, open innovation and organizational performance. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 128, 788–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bogers, M.; Foss, N.J.; Lyngsie, J. The “human side” of open innovation: The role of employee diversity in firm-level openness. Res. Policy 2018, 47, 218–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pisano, G.P.; Verganti, R. Which Kind of Collaboration Is Right for You? Harv. Bus. Rev. 2008, 86, 78–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zainal, Z. Case study as a research method. J. Kemanus 2007, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Creswell, J.W. Research Design. Qualitative, Quantitative and Mixed Methods Approaches, 3rd ed.; SAGE Publications Inc.: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Muhammad, F.; Aqeel, A.; Sri Sarah, M.M.S.; Wan Shakizah Wan, M.N.; Mohd Faizal, M.I. What makes human resource professionals effective? An exploratory lesson from techno-based Telco firms of a developing country. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 774165. [Google Scholar]
- Sashkin, M. The Organizational Cultural Assessment Questionnaire (OCAQ); User’s Manual; Ducochon Press: Washington, DC, USA; Seabrook, MD, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Verganti, R. Design-Driven Innovation—Cambiare le Regole della Competizione Innovando Radicalmente il Significato dei Prodotti e dei Servizi [Design-Driven Innovation. Changing the Rules of Competitions by Radically Innovating What Things Mean]; Etas: Milano, Italy, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- ISTAT Istituto Nazionale di Statistica. Rilevazione Statistica Sull’innovazione Nelle Imprese [Business Innovation Statistics]. 2021. Available online: https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/11394 (accessed on 30 January 2023).
- OECD The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Innovation in Firms: A Microeconomic Perspective. In Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development; OECD: Paris, France, 2009; pp. 11–20. [Google Scholar]
- Boyce, M.S. Scale for resource selection functions. Divers. Distrib. 2006, 12, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hutton, S.; Demir, R.; Eldridge, S. How does open innovation contribute to the firm’s dynamic capabilities? Technovation 2021, 106, 102288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naqshbandi, M.M.; Kaur, S.; Ma, P. What organizational culture types enable and retard open innovation? Qual. Quant. 2015, 49, 2123–2144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tsui, A.S.; Wang, H.; Xin, K.R. Organizational Culture in China: An Analysis of Culture Dimensions and Culture Types. Manag. Organ. Rev. 2006, 2, 345–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gehman, J.; Glaser, V.L.; Eisenhardt, K.M.; Gioia, D.; Langley, A.; Corley, K.G. Finding Theory–Method Fit: A Comparison of Three Qualitative Approaches to Theory Building. J. Manag. Inq. 2018, 27, 284–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, C.H.; Lee, T. Promoting entrepreneurial orientation through the accumulation of social capital, and knowledge management. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2015, 46, 138–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kratzer, J.; Meissner, D.; Roud, V. Open innovation and company culture: Internal openness makes the difference. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2017, 119, 128–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mittal, S.; Dhar, R.L. Transformational leadership and employee creativity: Mediating role of creative self-efficacy and moderating role of knowledge sharing. Manag. Decis. 2015, 53, 894–910. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ye, Q.; Wang, D.; Guo, W. Inclusive leadership and team innovation: The role of team voice and performance pressure. Eur. Manag. J. 2019, 37, 468–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooke, P.; Boekholt, P.; Tödtling, F. The Governance of Innovation in Europe: Regional Perspectives on Global Competitiveness; Piater: London, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Koster, F. Organizational Innovativeness through Inter-Organizational ties. In Advances in the Sociology of Trust and Cooperation; Buskens, V., Corten, R., Snijders, C., Eds.; De Gruyter: Boston, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 21, pp. 465–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cunningham, J.A.; Foncubierta-Rodríguez, M.J.; Martín-Alcázar, F.; Perea-Vicente, J.L. A Systematic Literature Review of Open Innovation and R&D Managers. In Managing Collaborative R&D Projects. Contributions to Management Science; Fernandes, G., Dooley, L., O’Sullivan, D., Rolstadås, A., Eds.; Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 19–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lichtenthaler, U. Open innovation in practice: An analysis of strategic approaches to technology transactions. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2008, 55, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ritter, T.; Gemünden, H.G. Network competence: Its impact on innovation success and its antecedents. J. Bus. Res. 2003, 56, 745–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kogut, B.; Zander, Z. Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology. Organ. Sci. 1992, 3, 383–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kimpimäki, J.P.; Malacina, I.; Lähdeaho, O. Open and sustainable: An emerging frontier in innovation management? Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 2022, 174, 121229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Silva, M.; Wright, M. Entrepreneurial co-creation: Societal impact through open innovation. RD Manag. 2019, 49, 318–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, B.; Redmond, J.; Sheridan, L.; Wang, C.; Goeft, U. Small and Medium Enterprises and the Environment: Barriers, Drivers, Innovation and Best Practice: A Review of the Literature; Edith Cowan University: Perth, Australia, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Oliveira, M.; Sousa, M.; Silva, R.; Santos, T. Strategy and human resources management in non-profit organizations: Its interaction with open innovation. J. Open. Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2021, 7, 75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erramy, K.; Ahrouch, S. Resource Sustainability, Cooperation Risk Management Capacity and NPO Social Entrepreneurship Activity: A Conceptual Model. Eur. Sci. J. ESJ 2021, 17, 281–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yin, R.K. Case Study Research: Design and Methods; SAGE Publications: Beverly Hills, CA, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Eisenhardt, K.M.; Graebner, M.E. Theory Building from Cases: Opportunities and Challenges. Organ. Res. Methods 2007, 50, 25–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Factor Label | Item | Mean (SD) | Factor Loadings | % Explained Variance | Cronbach’s Alpha (α) | AVE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Organizational innovation | IN1 | 3.61 (0.876) | 0.871 | 51.985 | 0.876 | 0.241 |
IN2 | 3.61 (0.934) | 0.870 | 0.243 | |||
IN3 | 3.66 (0.883) | 0.839 | 0.296 | |||
Marketing innovation | IN4 | 3.55 (0.994) | 0.936 | 11.997 | 0.828 | 0.124 |
IN5 | 3.58 (1.043) | 0.903 | 0.184 | |||
IN6 | 3.06 (0.964) | 0.720 | 0.481 | |||
Product innovation | IN7 | 3.42 (0.894) | 0.836 | 8.574 | 0.770 | 0.301 |
IN8 | 3.43 (0.924) | 0.820 | 0.327 | |||
Process innovation | IN9 | 3.48 (0.883) | 0.894 | 7.160 | 0.820 | 0.201 |
IN10 | 3.58 (0.923) | 0.778 | 0.394 | |||
IN11 | 3.86 (0.928) | 0.709 | 0.497 | |||
Technologies adopted to OI | T1 | 3.13 (1.196) | 0.896 | 75.615 | 0.919 | 0.197 |
T2 | 3.10 (1.199) | 0.895 | 0.199 | |||
T3 | 3.34 (1.165) | 0.881 | 0.223 | |||
T4 | 3.13 (1.056) | 0.843 | 0.289 | |||
T5 | 3.51 (1.084) | 0.832 | 0.307 | |||
Funding dedicated to OI | F1 | 2.96 (0.993) | 0.890 | 68.090 | 0.840 | 0.208 |
F2 | 3.03 (0.917) | 0.884 | 0.218 | |||
F3 | 2.91 (1.015) | 0.798 | 0.363 | |||
F4 | 2.97 (0.973) | 0.717 | 0.486 | |||
Funding barriers | B1 | 3.04 (1.186) | 0.870 | 37.935 | 0.725 | 0.243 |
B2 | 2.51 (1.119) | 0.830 | 0.311 | |||
B3 | 2.43 (1.163) | 0.588 | 0.654 | |||
Staff barriers | B4 | 3.16 (0.889) | −0.924 | 16.632 | 0.776 | 0.146 |
B5 | 3.19 (0.974) | −0.806 | 0.350 | |||
B6 | 2.99 (0.966) | −0.737 | 0.456 | |||
Marketing barriers | B7 | 2.71 (0.886) | 0.784 | 14.742 | 0.467 | 0.385 |
B8 | 2.95 (1.050) | 0.761 | 0.421 | |||
Creation of an innovative work environment | W1 | 3.64 (1.063) | 0.834 | 69.615 | 0.562 | 0.304 |
W2 | 2.94 (1.174) | 0.834 | 0.304 | |||
Customer orientation | COB1 | 3.90 (1.083) | 0.854 | 23.859 | 0.799 | 0.270 |
COB2 | 3.22 (1.059) | 0.766 | 0.413 | |||
COB3 | 3.29 (1.011) | 0.736 | 0.458 | |||
COB4 | 3.26 (0.951) | 0.638 | 0.593 | |||
Achieving goals in team | COB5 | 2.96 (1.141) | 0.761 | 22.994 | 0.837 | 0.421 |
COB6 | 3.13 (1.174) | 0.707 | 0.500 | |||
COB7 | 3.29 (1.234) | 0.694 | 0.518 | |||
COB8 | 2.81 (1.148) | 0.692 | 0.521 | |||
Managers’ approach to OI | COB9 | 3.38 (0.946) | 0.803 | 21.581 | 0.848 | 0.355 |
COB10 | 3.65 (0.957) | 0.781 | 0.390 | |||
COB11 | 3.48 (1.021) | 0.750 | 0.437 | |||
COB12 | 3.16 (0.812) | 0.749 | 0.438 |
Organizational Innovation | Marketing Innovation | Product Innovation | Process Innovation | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ID | B SE | β | B SE | β | B SE | β | B SE | β |
Achieving goals in team | 0.108 | 0.569 *** | 0.130 | 0.563 ** | 0.081 | 0.469 * | 0.105 | 0.535 * |
Managers’ approach to OI | 0.092 | 0.241 * | 0.112 | 0.065 | 0.069 | 0.277 * | 0.090 | 0.223 |
Customer orientation | 0.093 | 0.100 | 0.112 | 0.098 | 0.070 | 0.020 | 0.091 | 0.070 |
Fundings barriers | 0.110 | −0.005 | 0.133 | 0.167 | 0.083 | 0.063 | 0.108 | 0.008 |
Staff barriers | 0.099 | 0.120 | 0.120 | 0.151 | 0.075 | 0.054 | 0.097 | 0.169 |
Marketing barriers | 0.157 | 0.211 * | 0.190 | 0.132 | 0.118 | 0.051 | 0.154 | 0.206 * |
Fundings dedicated to OI | 0.093 | −0.003 | 0.113 | −0.087 | 0.070 | −0.107 | 0.091 | −0.153 |
How technologies are used for OI | 0.080 | −0.082 | 0.097 | −0.111 | 0.060 | −0.016 | 0.078 | 0.066 |
Positive workplace environment | 0.174 | −0.082 | 0.211 | −0.085 | 0.131 | −0.019 | 0.171 | −0.033 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Vigoroso, L.; Sorrenti, R.; Cavallo, E.; Caffaro, F. Non-Profit Organizations as Facilitators of the Sustainable Social Innovation of Firms: An Italian Case Study. Sustainability 2023, 15, 8058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108058
Vigoroso L, Sorrenti R, Cavallo E, Caffaro F. Non-Profit Organizations as Facilitators of the Sustainable Social Innovation of Firms: An Italian Case Study. Sustainability. 2023; 15(10):8058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108058
Chicago/Turabian StyleVigoroso, Lucia, Roberto Sorrenti, Eugenio Cavallo, and Federica Caffaro. 2023. "Non-Profit Organizations as Facilitators of the Sustainable Social Innovation of Firms: An Italian Case Study" Sustainability 15, no. 10: 8058. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15108058