Innovation Hub Drivers and Activities: A Desktop Assessment for Sustainability

Abstract

In the 21st century, the concept of the Innovation Hubinnovation hub (IH) has become increasingly significant with the emergence of collaborative spaces, entrepreneurial ecosystems, and the pursuit of creative, sustainable solutions to contemporary challenges. While the literature presents various typologies of IHs, a critical knowledge gap remains due to the limited availability of empirical data on their core drivers, functions, and sustainability practices. Addressing this gap through a comprehensive primary and secondary data collection will enhance the global understanding of IH dynamics, supporting evidence-based decision-making; strategic development; and long-term accountability for hub managers, entrepreneurs, and policymakers. This study aims to identify and classify the predominant characteristics of IHs, examining their key drivers, core activities, and sustainability dimensions through an in-depth analysis of three leading innovation hub networks: the European Creative Hubs Network (ECHN), Impact Hub, and Talent Garden (TAG). By exploring how these hubs foster innovation and integrate sustainability into their operational models, this research offers actionable insights for stakeholders seeking to align innovation with inclusive, resilient, and environmentally conscious economic development.

1. Introduction

Innovation is widely regarded as a catalyst for transformation, intricately linked to experimentation, entrepreneurship, and systemic change across multiple sectors. Foundational theories by scholars such as Joseph Schumpeter (1942) [1], who introduced the concept of creative destruction in driving economic growth; Everett Rogers (1962) [2], who explored the diffusion of innovations; and Peter Drucker (1985) [3], who emphasised systematic innovation and opportunity-driven entrepreneurship, continue to shape contemporary innovation discourse. Schumpeter [1] highlighted experimentation as the recombination of resources to generate new value, while Drucker [3] positioned entrepreneurship as the strategic pursuit of innovation opportunities. These foundational ideas underscore the role of innovation as a critical driver of organisational success and societal advancement [4].

In the 21st century, the concept of Innovation Hub(IH) has gained increasing traction with the emergence of collaborative spaces, startup ecosystems, and cross-sector initiatives that have implemented creative and often sustainable solutions to address global challenges, seize emerging opportunities, and enhance socio-economic resilience. Unlike traditional innovation models centred on technology alone, IHs promote a broader understanding of innovation that encompasses social, cultural, organisational, and environmental dimensions [5,6]. They foster inclusive collaboration, knowledge co-creation, and community empowerment—aligning with the principles of sustainable development and responsible innovation.

While IHs share some conceptual ground with clusters and incubators, they differ in significant ways. Clusters, as described by Alfred Marshall [7], involve geographic concentrations of similar industries, whereas IHs often transcend sectoral boundaries to nurture diverse, interdisciplinary interactions. Similarly, unlike business incubators that focus narrowly on early-stage startups [8], IHs typically serve as open, multi-stakeholder platforms that engage in continuous learning, experimentation, and value creation for broader societal impact.

Despite the growing interest in IHs, the academic literature and policy discourse still lack comprehensive empirical insights into their structures, activities, and outcomes—particularly in relation to their long-term sustainability. The British Council’s Hubs Report [9] and subsequent studies [10,11] have highlighted the need for more robust, multi-case data to understand what drives the effectiveness and sustainability of IHs. This evidence gap hinders the ability of stakeholders—such as policymakers, hub managers, and entrepreneurs—to make informed decisions, design strategic interventions, and ensure accountability and resilience in the face of economic, social, and environmental pressures.

This study’s theoretical contributions lie in advancing the conceptual understanding of IH dynamics and sustainability pathways by building on the existing literature. In contrast, its empirical contributions consist of original, cross-network comparative data gathered from in-depth case studies. By combining these approaches, the research offers a comprehensive perspective that bridges theory and practice, enhancing both academic knowledge and practical applications.

Bridging this gap offers both theoretical and practical value. Theoretically, it enhances our understanding of IH dynamics, including success factors and sustainability pathways. Practically, it enables stakeholders to align IH operations with sustainable development goals (SDGs), improve strategic planning, and build mechanisms that ensure long-term viability and inclusive growth.

This study, therefore, combines an extensive literature review with detailed case studies of three prominent innovation hub networks: the European Creative Hubs Network (ECHN), Impact Hub, and Talent Garden (TAG). Employing a mixed-methods approach—including both qualitative and quantitative data—this research aims to identify and classify the key IH characteristics, drivers, and core activities. A particular focus is placed on understanding how these hubs embed sustainability into their governance, operations, and impact models. The originality of this paper lies in its integrative, cross-network analysis of innovation hubs through the lens of sustainability, contributing to the long-term resilience and societal impact of these ecosystems.

The paper is structured as follows: First, it reviews the relevant literature and outlines the research methodology. Next, it defines and categorises IHs within a conceptual and sustainability-oriented framework. It then analyses the three case studies to identify the key activities, innovation strategies, and sustainability practices. Finally, the paper presents a comparative evaluation, discussing the critical drivers of economic viability, social inclusion, and long-term environmental resilience. The study provides actionable insights for stakeholders, offering strategic guidance for designing and managing IHs that not only foster innovation but also contribute meaningfully to sustainable development.

2. Literature Review: The Role of Innovation Hubs Today

Despite the fragmented nature of the definition of IH, the existing literature suggests that IHs serve as intermediary entities across different phases of innovative processes, supporting dynamic development and competitiveness [12,13]. Jiménez and Zheng [14] describe IHs as relational spaces that promote collaboration among diverse parties [15] and act as nodes within knowledge networks, facilitating the exchange of information, skills, and resources [16,17]. They enable the transformation of knowledge and ideas into value [18,19].

Typically embedded within global networks, IHs’ effectiveness depends on the network configurations that define their operational frameworks, influencing their empowerment structures. These networks, whether formal or informal, can either enable or hinder various types of empowerments, ranging from centralised to loose structures [20].

Schiuma & Santarsiero [13] attribute the emergence of IHs to a commitment to open innovation, fostering participatory events that overcome cultural barriers [21] and cultivate a solution-oriented perspective [22]. At the same time, Amar & Juneja [23] highlight IHs’ organisational innovation capacity for promoting entrepreneurial attitudes and managing activities crucial for successful innovations, such as creative thinking.

Globally, many countries are establishing IHs to impact university-level education and attract foreign institutions through internationalisation efforts [24]. In regions like the Middle East and Southeast Asia, universities are driving innovation and the transition towards knowledge-based economies, focusing on education and training [25] and cultivating talents [26]. Similarly, IHs based in Australian public universities are aiming to provide knowledge and practical skills to support innovative industry practices, primarily focusing on coaching startups rather than leading innovations to market or investing in them [27].

In this system, universities facilitate knowledge transfer to enterprises through intellectual property agreements, ensuring development and cooperation while balancing income distribution through collaborative innovation [28,29]. Universities also engage in open innovation via R&D projects and communities of practice, supported by models like the triple helix, which involve university–industry–government collaboration and generate spin-offs based on university research [30].

The models oriented towards entrepreneurship education and startup competitions are discussed by Bodolica [10] as examples of IHs promoted in Europe and the US, which are particularly interested in stimulating growth in the SME environment. Aligned with this, Dada & Van Belle [31] highlight leadership and entrepreneurship as critical factors influencing the successful establishment of technology-oriented hubs. In this regard, these hubs serve as critical nodes in driving significant socio-economic impact, particularly in developing countries [32]. They excel at adapting educational programs to local needs, as evidenced in regions like Zambia [33], where IHs are overseen by academic institutions (10.5%) and government entities (11.7%) [34].

Within this framework, according to O’Hare et al. [16], regardless of the specific IHs’ aims, half of all hubs cease their activities within three years of opening. O’Connor & De Martino [35] observe that around 25% of hubs manage to survive beyond the initial five years by transitioning from being ‘ideas generators’ to ‘incubators.’ This transformation, closely tied to the ‘culture of innovation,’ may also be associated with critical issues that arise during the implementation of innovative solutions generated by IH activities, generally due to a lack of connection with the stakeholders and surrounding ecosystems [36].

To bridge the literature gap regarding the operational aspects of the diverse approaches employed by IHs to foster innovation and knowledge management, this study addresses the following inquiries: (1) What are the predominant characteristics and activities of IHs? (2) What key activities do IHs employ to foster innovation, determining their success?

3. Methodology

To investigate the research questions, this study combines case studies analysis and literature review, incorporating data from annual reports, workshops, interviews, and documents. By triangulating these diverse sources, it provides a comprehensive and robust understanding of IHs, including the factors influencing their success.

The research design followed a structured approach based on Kitchenham’s [37] method (Figure 1). The review process adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement [38]. The PRISMA flow diagram is presented in Figure 2, and the completed PRISMA checklist is provided as Supplementary Material Table S1. As Figure 1 shows, this research began with a systematic review (Phase A) covering the academic literature (A.1) and the grey literature (A.2), to analyse existing typologies and frameworks of IHs and identify the research gaps. Within the grey literature are included hub reports and public online content, such as websites and event data. Methodological triangulation was therefore employed by integrating the three data sources. As represented in Figure 2, this multi-source approach allowed us to cross-verify recurring patterns and to minimise dependence on any single data type, thereby significantly enhancing the reliability and validity of our findings. This approach is crucial for compiling a comprehensive body of literature, documenting the current state-of-the-art, and revealing gaps in both academic and primary research [39]. It also facilitates the establishment of empirical insights and the avoidance of analytical generalisations [40]. The selection of the period 2017–2023 was determined by the availability of consistent and comparable data across the three hub networks during this period, ensuring the reliability and relevance of the analysis.

The investigation conducted in Phase A.1 used the Scopus database (scopus.com) to examine various types of publications—articles, conference papers, reviews, and books—from specialised journals within the subject areas of ‘Social Science, ‘Arts and Humanities,’ ‘Business, Management and Accounting,’ ‘Decision Science,’ and ‘Economics, Econometrics and Finance.’ The results showed a significant increase in publications after 2013, with a focus on ‘Innovation’ and ‘Network’ contexts, predominantly in ‘Social Science.’ In Phase A.2, the review of grey literature focused on analysing case studies of three prominent IH networks: the ECHN, Impact Hub, and TAG. This phase involved examining their characteristics, key drivers, and activities using information from their annual reports, firms’ reports, public documents, and websites. Data collection employed both qualitative and quantitative methods to gather diverse perspectives, and within this framework, a categorisation was developed to classify IHs based on their unique characteristics. To refine the definition of IHs and address the research questions, the exploratory research involved analysing highly cited papers and conducting cross-case analyses using qualitative and network analysis methods to assess their impact and assessment tools.

In Phase B, the Qualitative Content Analysis provided evidence-based insights into the research questions and scope [41], pinpointing key innovation drivers generated by the various hubs [42]. This phase’s findings enhanced understanding of the main hubs’ characteristics and activities.

Finally, the use of the triangulation method and the examination of reporting activities (Phase C) facilitated a comparative and descriptive analysis to discern patterns, trends, and characteristics across different contexts, thereby supporting the mapping of key success factors of IHs. During this phase, the descriptive analysis revealed the frequency and tendencies of the measured data, which allowed us to identify the key drivers of the hubs. Ninety-two papers were selected, and all are included in this paper.

Results Analysis

Table 1. Study characteristics of the three major IH networks examined in this study: Impact Hub, the European Creative Hubs Network (ECHN), and Talent Garden (TAG).

Hub Network	Year	Geographic Scope	Focus Area	N. Hubs/Countries	Main Activites	Sustainability Focus
Impact Hub	2005	Global	Social Innovation & Entrepreneurship	110 hubs in 67 countries (2023)	Capacity-building, mentoring, co-working, visibility, knowledge exchange	Social inclusion, entrepreneurial skill-building, impact measurement
European Creative Hubs Network (ECHN)	2017 (rooted in earlier initiatives from 1977)	Europe	Creativity & Cultural Industries	~60 hubs; 59% funded post-2013	Cultural co-creation, community engagement, market entry support, education partnerships	Creative sector empowerment, urban development, innovation for public value
Talent Garden (TAG)	2011	Europe (12 countries)	Tech & Digital Innovation	20 campuses in 12 countries	Digital education, skill-building, investor networking, entrepreneurial development	Digital literacy, professional upskilling, scalable ventures

provides a summary of the characteristics of the three selected IHs networks analysed in this study. The table highlights the variations in their geographical reach, strategic focus, and operational models, offering comparative insights into their activities, network sizes, and approaches to sustainability.

4. Results

4.1. Defining Innovation Hubs

4.1.1. Innovation Hubs Categories

As mentioned, all IHs share the common aim of fostering innovation and facilitating knowledge exchange across various domains. Yet, they can be categorised into several subcategories based on their specific scopes and tasks. These categories operate within diverse approaches, with each type of hub focusing on distinct activities and services. They may be identified as Innovation Hubs, Knowledge Hubs, Social Hubs, Impact Hubs, Tech Hubs, or Digital Hubs. As illustrated in

Table 2. Definitions of the main types of ‘Hubs’ retrieved from the literature. Source: Authors’ elaboration.

Hub Type	Authors (Excerpt)	Activities
Innovation Hub	[10,25,28,43,44,45,46]	- Creation/co-creation of business ideas and foster entrepreneurship - Accessibility to market opportunities (acceleration, incubation, pre-incubation) - Counseling and advisory rules - HR consulting - Nurture the local and international network boosting connection and collaborations - Provide access to knowledge with education and training programs - Provide infrastructures and co-working spaces
Knowledge Hub	[25,47,48]	- Diminish knowledge gaps and enhance interdisciplinary collaborations - Improve human capital resources - Enhance collaborations between academia, local business and financial communities
Education Hub	[25,26,49,50]	- Engage with students and stakeholders in innovative training and knowledge production - Plan and execute initiatives involving local and foreign stakeholders in order to build a critical mass and influence the new marketplace of education
Social/Impact Hub	[51,52]	- Locally active and globally connected network of social entrepreneurs aiming to increase the positive impact of each single entrepreneur to tackle societal challenges - Create ‘ecosystems’ as enabling environments for entrepreneurial action, combining elements from co-working spaces, innovation labs, and business incubators - Search for innovative ways to adapt the franchise business model to better accommodate competing financial and social pressures
Cultural/Creative Hub	[9,53,54,55]	- Creative Hubs facilitate communication among creative professionals across sectors, encouraging a global perspective, continuous evaluation, refinement of their offerings, and the opportunity to learn, receive feedback, and gather evidence necessary for growth - Creation of critical mass for the creative community, creating dialogues between stakeholders, policymakers and government(s) - Targeted to residents as well as overseas tourists
Tech/Digital Hub	[4,6,56,57]	- Space for co-working oriented to build a tech-oriented community - Provide support and services for companies releasing tech-oriented products to the market - Support the whole innovation chain from ideation and proof of principle - an ecosystem that enables businesses to reach required knowledge, expertise and technology for testing and experimenting digital innovations relevant to their products, processes, or business models
Corporate/Firms hub	[34,58]	- Typically dispersed throughout a firm - Aiming at reducing the gap between potential and realized absorptive capacity, making knowledge accessible and useful - Engines of renewal creating bridges into innovative ecosystems with the purpose to develop new ideas and incorporate innovative technologies

, each typology is delineated by a specific objective and targets a particular audience: Social and Impact Hubs concentrate on enhancing local communities and economies, while Tech and Digital Hubs aim to provide skills and services related to technological development and application. Knowledge and Education Hubs primarily develop innovative educational programs, whereas Cultural/Creative Hubs are oriented towards the cultural and creative sectors. Corporate hubs focus on transferring groundbreaking knowledge and ideas to established organisations, often embedded within corporate settings.

In the realm of IHs, the literature suggests that Tech/Digital Hubs are closely associated with knowledge management, often using ICT as facilitators of knowledge transfer [59]. These strategies become particularly explicit in inner cities, where the synergies between technologies, cultures, and ‘places’ prompt the attraction of the world’s major enterprises and knowledge professionals [60]. Similarly, Creative Hubs have proliferated across various regions, often under city hubs and creative district initiatives, intertwining their trajectories with municipal policies [55]. Serving as conduits for internationalisation [61] or as arenas for experimentation [62], these hubs embody their dynamic urban landscapes, working as regional gatekeepers of networks [63]. Examples abound, including cities such as Zaragoza and Eindhoven, district-hubs like 22@Barcelona in Spain [64], Cambridge Science Park in the UK [65], Arabianranta in Finland, and Strijp-S in the Netherlands [66]. In essence, while the objectives and demographics of different hub typologies may vary, they converge on a shared commitment to fostering economic growth and societal inclusivity. The sustainability and effectiveness of these hubs hinge significantly on their geographic positioning, aligning with the specific needs and priorities of local communities and governing bodies.

4.1.2. Hubs’ Networks

The connectivity of each individual hub is influenced by its size and initial resources, as indicated by O’Connor & De Martino [35], or determined by the organisational relationships between the core company and each specific hub, as outlined by O’Reilly & Tushman [67]. Within this framework, the two main hub network models are the network-centric and R&D models.

In the network-centric innovation model, the hub defines the core innovation architecture, and the network members contribute to developing the different elements that implement this core. This model is particularly prevalent in the technology sector and for hub firms. A notable example is Silicon Valley, where the production of certain components is decentralised to network companies to minimise development redundancy and costs [68]. In this scenario, the hub core is responsible for various orchestration processes, including managing knowledge mobility, ensuring innovation appropriability and coherence, and maintaining network stability [69,70]. O’Hare et al. [16] emphasised that the IHs with the closest ties to the core organisation tend to endure in the long term, exhibiting greater alignment on common perspectives and projects.

The R&D hub model presents a different scenario, characterised by tight central control that is bolstered by integrating the inputs and competencies from decentralised (and internationalised) resources [71]. Within the European Union, this network structure constitutes a fundamental policy framework: the networks serve as robust connections for research and diffusion linkages, while the hubs operate as nodes for regional connections. In such cases, the hubs play a crucial role in developing and disseminating knowledge, maintaining a balance between the supply and demand sides, and facilitating access to resources and opportunities, ultimately transforming knowledge into products and processes [72].

In large-scale network hubs, the relation of the core organisation with the decentralised structures is identified as a key element. Examples of such leading IH networks are Impact Hub (impacthub.net), the European Creative Hubs Network (ECHN—creativehubs.net), and Talent Garden (TAG—talentgarden.org). These networks represent diverse approaches to building and sustaining innovation communities. While Impact Hub focuses on global social impact, the ECHN concentrates on fostering creativity in Europe. TAG specialises in technology and digital innovation with a global perspective. Each model reflects the unique priorities and goals of the respective networks within the broader context of innovation and collaboration.

The analysis of these hubs’ networks serves as a valuable source of information, offering diverse perspectives, best practices, and insights that contribute to a comprehensive understanding of the key drivers influencing the success and impact of IHs. Their actions will be analysed in the following Section 4.1.3.

4.1.3. Hubs’ Activities: Case Studies Insights

As hubs are adaptable organisations endorsed by a globally oriented network-based organisational model, their activities are notably influenced by the geopolitical context of their physical locations. An illustrative instance is the Social Hub in London and Sub-Saharan Africa, as highlighted by Jiménez & Zheng [14]. While the hubs in Africa emphasise capacity building for soft and new skills, along with providing co-working spaces, those in London concentrate on promoting social inclusion and diversity.

The examination of impact reports and surveys of IHs networks, such as Impact Hub, the ECHN, and TAG, provided a broad overview of the activities promoted by the hubs and their members’ feedback (Figure 3). Impact Hub, established in 2005 to assist enterprises addressing societal challenges, focuses its assessments on the deployment of its hub network and its economic impact on businesses [73,74,75,76,77,78]. The global Impact Hub network underwent substantial growth, expanding from 30 hubs in 2007 to 100 in 2017 [45]. This number increased further over the years, reaching 110 hubs across 67 countries in 2023 [18]. In comparison, the ECHN, founded in 1977 with an average annual turnover of 60 hubs, experienced a modest increase of 10 hubs between 2017 and 2022, and 59% of these hubs received funding after 2013. More recently founded in 2011, Talent Garden is a leading European operator in Digital Education in terms of its size and geographical presence. With the goal of supporting talent and companies in their digital growth, it currently has 20 campuses in 12 European countries [79,80,81].

Within innovation, these structures embody a diverse range of impactful activities. Despite inconsistencies and gaps in the data, the analysis, illustrated in Figure 3, shows the percentages of preferred activities among the members of these hub networks, revealing discernible patterns. Across all the examined hub networks, each innovation hub operates as a dynamic and multi-functional space designed to foster both local and international collaboration. Beyond their co-working function, these physical environments are structured platforms that facilitate knowledge exchange, interdisciplinary interaction, and community-building processes. The spatial configuration and social dynamics of these hubs play a critical role in enabling open innovation practices, extending collaborative potential beyond individual enterprises, and fostering cross-sectoral synergies. Such environments contribute to the development of shared identities and social cohesion, which are essential components of innovation-driven communities and resilient ecosystems. Although services like incubation, pre-incubation, and acceleration are part of the IHs’ activities, none of the analysed networks primarily focus on these. Startup initiatives and financial investments in companies appear to be secondary activities for the hubs’ members.

The primary interest of IHs remains on attending workshops, acquiring new skills, and developing competencies, underscoring their ongoing commitment to learning and skill enhancement within the hub environment. This is the case for the Impact Hubs, which offer capacity-building initiatives, create enriching learning environments, and implement mentoring programs. In this context, they provide courses covering entrepreneurship skills and technology-oriented subjects. At the same time, the data shows that Impact Hubs actively facilitate connections among their members, experts and advisors, helping them gain visibility. It is notable that the hubs’ members are predominantly junior professionals and independent workers, who are interested in networking and skills development.

Even at a secondary level, and particularly evident in the case of the ECHN, the hubs play a role in guiding ideas from conception to market entry, forging robust connections with research and education programs. In this instance, the data concerning the ECHN reveals a heightened interest among its members in capital acquisition and investments.

The situation differs for TAG, which is closely associated with entrepreneurial ecosystems and establishes connections with investors to propel promising ventures into the marketplace. Aligned with this, the hubs’ members have shown their interest in the acquisition of new clients and beneficiaries.

4.2. Hubs’ Sustainable Drivers

Within the domain of IH management, the practices and systems focusing on innovation processes are paramount. For driving innovation within hubs, O’Hare et al. [16] and Kupp et al. [34] highlight the importance of long-term objectives and strategic planning, whereas the integration of external developments into core organisational processes, exemplified by Google’s acquisition of Keyhole, underscores the need for agile knowledge management practices [19]. To evaluate hub performance, Pancholi et al.’s research [66] underscores the value of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) as knowledge management tools, while Chan et al. [82] emphasise the role of patents as knowledge assets indicative of innovation. Within this framework, the World Bank’s evaluation of tech hubs [83] outlines the importance of tracking investments in innovative products and startups, similarly to Kim et al. [84], who highlight the significance of economic factors when evaluating the value of an invention.

On the contrary, Goldenberg et al. [85] argue that IHs distinguish themselves by their ability to anticipate the market, measuring innovation by its impact on market adoption. This approach aligns with Silicon Valley’s ‘Cluster of Innovation’ (CoI), which represents a collaborative ecosystem fostering and supporting innovative advancements, emphasising dimensions beyond monetary gains. Within the CoI, the evaluation of financial processes is closely tied to their impact on introducing innovative technologies and solutions to the marketplace. However, according to Kim et al. [84], the evaluation of the local social dimension by both the CoI and many existing hubs is frequently neglected. An exemplary case is the collaboration of the CoI with Stanford University, which led to the establishment of 2770 spin-offs and 8961 patents, with half of the spin-off company revenue funded by venture capital from 2006 to 2010. Similarly, from 1988 to 2012, UC Berkeley witnessed the creation of 65 startups out of 140 aimed at commercialising Berkeley innovations, securing an average funding of $13.8 million each [19]. This funding data reflects not only the interest in commercialising inventions but also the availability of substantial financial support for these ventures, illustrating the dynamic nature of IHs and their impact on innovation, collaboration, and financial processes.

An exception to this trend is the IHs evaluation system in Tanzania [46], which prioritises knowledge sharing and local empowerment as the key aspects of successful hub management. Aligned with this perspective, the Creative Hubs network [86] emphasises the role of knowledge exchange in fostering innovation and creativity. Understanding and responding to local needs emerge as the critical drivers for successful hub management [87], highlighting the integral role of knowledge management in shaping innovation ecosystems [52].

Within this framework, three key elements are identified in the literature for the economic sustainability, social inclusion, and long-term perspective of IHs: people, networks, and physical environment. These factors are the key drivers of action development and impact in any type of hub, but are often underestimated in hubs’ impact evaluations. The details of these key elements are as follows:

• People/Talents

Experts, such as Kandampully [59], Suh [88], and Mwantimwa [11], agree that human knowledge is the key added value of a hub. Goldenberg et al. [85] underscore the importance of engaging influential individuals within a hub, who are capable of connecting with innovators and contributing to multidisciplinary and creative teams with diverse skills [89]. Leifer [45] highlights risk-taking and thinking ‘outside the box’ as crucial capacities, while Kupp et al. [34] underline the independence of hub managers and teams as essential for supporting startups. Cohn et al. [90] and Suh [88] further note that overcoming mental barriers and fostering openness are critical to generating innovative ideas.

In the case of Silicon Valley, everyone contributes to the IH’s development—from the leaders shaping the innovative environments to the workers and newcomers attracted by the ecosystem [91].

In the Cultural Hub located in the World Heritage site in Malaysia mentioned by Chan et al. [53], the creative actors in the district make a substantial difference, possessing ‘the knowledge and skills for turning culture into business’ [92].

These studies confirm that hosting communities of passionate and entrepreneurial individuals who encourage collaborations is indeed a leverage points for IHs [56,93], whereas talent and creativity fuel hub success by driving innovation, startups, and cultural entrepreneurship.

2.

Network(s): Collaborations and Social Contact

The research has highlighted that hubs thrive in collaborative environments [9,45,47]. In startup accelerators, mentor and investor networks provide vital expertise in technology, branding, and human resources [34]. International networks also strengthen regional IHs by overcoming their geographical peripherality and enhancing their organisational proximity [65]. At the same time, the ’hidden work’ of curating and animating activities is critical to hub success [9].

This type of ecosystem is evident in the IHs in southwest Norway, as noted by [65], which have reduced their peripherality through ties to international networks. In this context, effective and continuous communication among all local stakeholders, combined with a profound understanding of the entrepreneurial ecosystem, is pivotal for startup creation, gradual market introduction, facilitating data collection and sharing, and ensuring effective management and impact measurements [57]. Especially in the creation of artistic communities, hub events generate ideas, develop socio-cultural capital, and provide access to new and specialised skills, such as technical and financial expertise.

Cultural hubs in city districts, like 22@Barcelona in Spain [64] and Strijp-S in the Netherlands [66], demonstrate that spatial proximity and personal interactions facilitate knowledge exchange and spillover effects between individuals and companies, which are crucial for developing soft competences and transferring knowledge.

In these contexts, networks extend the hubs’ value beyond physical spaces, promoting collaboration and a diversity of genders, classes, and ethnicities [94]. This approach fosters a shared vision and accelerates the development of a shared identity, trust, and cohesion, encouraging collaborations leading to joint projects and successful business model adaptations [51,82].

3.

Physical Environment

The research on European and British Creative Hubs mapping [95,96] shows that most hubs rely on physical meeting spaces for their players and stakeholders. This trend confirms the reciprocal influence of spaces and social practices [97,98], reinforcing the theoretical frameworks that highlight the importance of physical proximity for innovation [99,100]. As noted in Section 4.1.3, according to Jiménez & Zheng [14], the development of physical spaces depends on the context, particularly its ability to support shared activities and community development.

These situations are present in Creative Hubs in Europe as well as in Africa [101]. Innovation hubs in Kenya [8] and Tanzania [11] demonstrate how physical infrastructure fosters innovation [94], facilitating moments of co-creation and network building, promoting knowledge transfer and interactive learning. In these cases, the hubs act not only as functional spaces, but also as strategic drivers of sustainable and socially embedded innovation.

These three key drivers, identified as of primary importance in the literature, align with the previously mentioned case studies, viewing IHs as structures that prioritise fostering a vibrant community, facilitating networking opportunities, and establishing conducive physical environments. Therefore, policies attuned to these three key drivers can amplify the efficacy and influence of IHs in nurturing a thriving, more resilient, and sustainable innovation ecosystem. Despite this recognition, hub assessments often remain narrowly focused on member participation, student engagement, and short-term economic outputs. To realign evaluations with sustainability goals, effective strategies should prioritise cross-sector collaboration, inclusive stakeholder engagement, and equitable resource distribution for continuous skill development. Tailored key performance indicators (KPIs) that account for social capital generation, community resilience, and environmental as well as social impacts are essential for capturing the full value IHs provide.

Additionally, sustained investment in the physical infrastructure of IHs is crucial—not merely as a functional requirement, but as a driver of inclusive, low-impact innovation. Maintaining accessible, adaptive, and resource-efficient environments enables IHs to act as long-term platforms for collaboration, creativity, and capacity building, reinforcing their role in shaping sustainable and socially embedded innovation networks.

5. Discussion

This review focuses on the analysis of three prominent IH networks adopted as case studies: the ECHN, Impact Hub, and TAG. These were chosen due to their international scope, diversity in governance and mission, and accessible datasets, which were essential for conducting a comparative network analysis.

Drawing from both the grey literature and academic sources, one major constraint of this research lies in the lack of transparency and consistency in data across the selected hub networks. Much of the publicly available information is derived from marketing-oriented reports, promotional materials, or gray literature, which often lack methodological rigor and omit critical indicators of social or environmental impact.

This research shows that innovation hubs function as holistic ecosystems that integrate spatial, social, and organisational dimensions to promote collaboration, learning, and entrepreneurial activity. While many hubs prioritise startup incubation, their roles are increasingly encompassing broader objectives, such as lifelong learning, digital inclusion, and community empowerment. Their adaptive structures and governance models allow them to respond to the evolving needs of their members and external stakeholders, reflecting the diverse missions and operational priorities that characterise different hub networks. This flexibility highlights their strategic importance in the wider innovation landscape, particularly as intermediaries in regional development and sustainable transformation processes.

Building on the foundational concepts of innovation ecosystems and open innovation e.g., [12,13], the findings highlight how IHs embody a multidimensional role—integrating social, spatial, and governance dimensions—that traditional models often overlook. The research underlines the importance of IHs’ geopolitical embedding and relational capacities for fostering inclusive communities and cross-border collaboration, thereby advancing theories of networked innovation and sustainability transitions. Moreover, by identifying the gap between IHs’ social missions and the lack of systematic impact measurements, the study calls for integrating sustainability-oriented frameworks and accountability mechanisms into innovation theory, thus bridging the divide between theoretical discourse and practical, mission-driven governance aligned with global sustainability goals.

6. Conclusions

This study offers a comprehensive and sustainability-oriented understanding of the key drivers behind IHs, combining theoretical perspectives with empirical analysis to develop a novel framework for identifying their typologies, structures, and strategic functions. By examining three global IH networks—Impact Hub, the European Creative Hubs Network (ECHN), and Talent Garden (TAG)—the research sheds light on the role of IHs as critical intermediary agents in diverse stages of the innovation process, addressing existing gaps in the literature and practice.

This paper therefore presents a cross-comparative, sustainability-focused analysis of IH networks, offering a multidimensional and scientific perspective that integrates the social, spatial, and governance dimensions—an approach largely overlooked in previous research on innovation ecosystems.

In the literature, IHs are identified as dynamic catalysts for sustainable development and competitiveness. Positioned within global networks, these hubs operate as relational and collaborative spaces that enable cross-border knowledge exchange and foster open innovation. Their success and sustainability are closely tied to their geopolitical embedding and their capacity to create inclusive, connected communities rooted in shared values and social cohesion.

Beyond traditional support functions, such as incubation or acceleration, IHs emphasize co-working, lifelong learning, and skill development—offering environments conducive to capacity building, mentorship, and community-driven innovation. These practices enhance social capital and support more inclusive innovation ecosystems, particularly for independent workers and early-career professionals seeking visibility, connection, and empowerment through knowledge networks.

In practical terms, this study offers several concrete recommendations for IH managers, policymakers, and stakeholders. The practical implications include suggestions for enhancing impact through network building; the creation of inclusive and flexible physical spaces; and the implementation of talent development programs aimed at supporting digital skills, entrepreneurship, and social innovation. First, hubs should implement hybrid funding and partnership models that balance financial viability with their social mission, ensuring operational resilience while expanding access. Second, investment in digital infrastructure and open data platforms could help them track and communicate their social impact more transparently. Third, the development of formalised stakeholder engagement mechanisms—particularly with universities, municipalities, and civil society organisations—would amplify their strategic role in regional development. Strategically, this implies a shift from short-term, project-based logic to long-term, mission-driven governance, which is better aligned with global sustainability agendas.

However, the findings highlight a consistent gap between the social mission of IHs and the market-oriented nature of their performance indicators. Despite their stated commitment to social impact and sustainability, IHs often lack structured mechanisms with which to measure or communicate their broader social and environmental value. As such, for future studies, this study calls for the implementation of transparent reporting systems, social impact assessment tools, and longitudinal research methods. These instruments would support a more accountable, inclusive, and resilient innovation ecosystem aligned with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly those relating to quality education, decent work, reduced inequalities, sustainable cities, and responsible production and consumption.

Furthermore, although universities are often seen as potential synergistic partners, the study finds a lack of concrete mechanisms linking higher education institutions to IHs in ways that would strengthen entrepreneurial ecosystems and amplify IHs’ sustainable impact. This signals the need for further research on university-centric hubs and their role in cultivating entrepreneurial and sustainable cultures.

To enhance transparency and accountability, the adoption of robust assessment frameworks and longitudinal studies is recommended. In future research, these tools would enable the more accurate measurement of IHs’ social and environmental impact, supporting their continuous improvement and adaptation to diverse local and regional contexts. Further investigation is required to test the adaptability of these models across regions, particularly in developing economies where IHs can serve as catalysts for sustainable tourism, cultural preservation, and local economic resilience. Whereas the case studies mostly relate to European-related activities, future research could explore to what extent the findings account for the regional and cultural differences in the operational models of innovation hubs. Investigating these cultural and regional nuances would offer valuable insights into how innovation hubs function in diverse contexts. At the same time, future research would greatly benefit from the creation of primary data sources, such as interviews with key stakeholders, to deepen empirical insights and enhance the understanding of IHs’ real-world dynamics and impact.

In conclusion, innovation hubs represent not only nodes of entrepreneurship and knowledge exchange but also potential drivers of sustainable transformation. Strengthening their capacity to measure their social impact, engage with diverse stakeholders, and align with long-term sustainability goals will be critical for enhancing their relevance and effectiveness in global and local development agendas.