Harnessing Crowdsourced Innovation for Sustainable Impact: The Role of Digital Platforms in Mobilising Collective Intelligence

Abstract

This paper explores how digital crowdsourcing platforms communicate sustainability-oriented innovation and mobilise stakeholder engagement. Through a directed content analysis of three platforms (OpenIDEO, San Francisco, CA, USA; Enel Innovation Hub, Rome, Italy; and InnoCentive, Waltham, MA, USA). The study examines communication strategies, participation models, and alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Results show that communication is not neutral but functions as a governance mechanism shaping who participates, how innovation is framed, and what outcomes emerge. OpenIDEO fosters inclusive co-creation and SDG alignment, Enel Innovation Hub highlights technical readiness and energy transition, and InnoCentive relies on rewards and competition. Word-frequency analysis confirms these emphases, while interpretation through Motivation Crowding Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transaction Cost Theory explains how motivational framing, legitimacy signals, and participation structures affect engagement. The study contributes to research on open innovation and platform studies by demonstrating the constitutive role of communication in enabling or constraining sustainable collective action. Practical implications are outlined for platform designers, marketers, and policymakers seeking to align digital infrastructures with systemic sustainability goals.

1. Introduction

Sustainability challenges are multifaceted and urgent, requiring immediate and coordinated action across multiple sectors. Key global concerns, including population growth, access to clean energy, freshwater availability, and climate change, underscore the complexity of sustainability transitions [1]. Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are particularly burdened in managing the balance between economic, environmental, and social goals [2]. In sub-Saharan Africa, for instance, systemic challenges often intersect with multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), thereby necessitating integrated and multi-objective approaches [3]. Moreover, the acceleration of sustainability transitions introduces additional challenges, such as the need for whole-system transformations and the development of new governance paradigms [4]. In urban contexts, sustainability solutions depend on participatory governance mechanisms and the deployment of relevant indicators [5]. For process systems engineering, extending the boundaries of analysis to encompass environmental and societal factors is essential [6]. Scientific inquiry, meanwhile, must grapple with irreversibility, uncertainty, and long-term complexity—elements that challenge conventional empirical and methodological tools [7].

Addressing these diverse sustainability issues calls for interdisciplinary collaboration and innovative mechanisms of collective intelligence, particularly through digital means. Digital platforms are active agents in fostering open innovation and mobilising collective intelligence [8]. They reduce transaction costs and enable flexible, multi-stakeholder engagement in real-world problem-solving [9,10]. As living labs, they support the co-creation of sustainable solutions across sectors and geographies [11], empowering SMEs in developing economies and facilitating innovation in urban environments [12].

Digital platforms are seen as facilitators of sustainability-oriented innovation when integrated into open innovation strategies [13]. However, social innovation platforms often struggle to scale or sustain their impact beyond the project phase [14]. Through effective integration and reconfiguration capabilities, platforms improve the sustainable innovation performance of firms [13]. Their meta-organisational nature enables new forms of governance, collaboration, and value creation, but demands careful design that aligns economic, environmental, and social priorities [15]. As tools for platform urbanism, they have also been instrumental in participatory urban planning and climate innovation [16,17].

Innovation platforms can be understood as ecosystems that facilitate knowledge sharing, value co-creation, and multi-actor collaboration. They motivate participation through both extrinsic rewards and intrinsic satisfaction, the latter being especially influential in encouraging the creation of high-quality content [18,19]. These platforms empower users—whether citizens, employees, or entrepreneurs—to co-create sustainable products and services [20], participate in climate innovation [17], and engage in civic processes such as urban mobility planning [21].

Importantly, communication is not just a medium but a mechanism of transformation. Platforms that enable transparent, interactive, and trust-building conversations are more likely to foster meaningful stakeholder engagement and collective sense-making [22,23]. These communicative processes play a vital role in achieving SDGs by aligning diverse interests and creating consensus around sustainability priorities [24].

Recent research indicates a growing interest in platform-mediated crowdsourcing for sustainability and social innovation, although the theoretical and empirical understanding of this field remains fragmented. Crowdsourcing platforms for sustainability specifically aim to mobilise collective intelligence to tackle environmental and social challenges and have emerged as powerful tools that harness distributed knowledge and skills to tackle complex innovation problems [25,26]. They have been used to fund green technologies [27], promote collaborative value creation [28,29], and support civic engagement [30]. Nevertheless, these platforms also face significant design, coordination, and equity challenges. Effective governance and user-centred design are essential for ensuring long-term engagement and avoiding the amplification of social inequities, particularly between information-rich and information-poor populations [31]. Despite these limitations, such platforms have the potential to transform traditional business models, optimise resource use, and foster co-creative processes for complex societal issues [32,33]. They represent a shift toward more inclusive, distributed, and purpose-driven innovation systems, where the crowd becomes a legitimate actor in shaping sustainable futures.

These platforms enable organisations to collaborate with external contributors—including individuals, startups, and NGOs—through open innovation models, thereby transforming traditional innovation systems [16,34]. Depending on their structure, platforms support various stages of the innovation lifecycle, from idea generation to market implementation [35]. However, these systems are not without challenges; tensions surrounding intellectual property, long-term user engagement, and trust continue to be obstacles [36]. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into these platforms may further expand their potential, enabling the development of more efficient and innovative solutions [36]. As digital transformation deepens, these platforms increasingly serve as strategic assets for gathering information, managing knowledge, and fostering competitive innovation capabilities [37].

A more comprehensive perspective on the sustainability of crowdsourcing platforms, one that includes value co-creation, temporal dimensions, and platform governance, is urgently needed [38]. Key success factors include aligning task design, platform architecture, participant motivation, and governance mechanisms [39]. Research also shows that platform typologies influence user participation and innovation outcomes [40]. Action research has led to the development of design principles for social innovation platforms in sectors such as tourism [32], while green crowdsourcing—leveraging social media for ecological problem-solving—demonstrates the role of collaborative value creation in eco-innovation [28,29].

A significant strand of research has examined open innovation contests as mechanisms within crowdsourcing platforms. These contests rely heavily on design elements that influence both participation and the quality of the outcome. Variables such as prize amount, contest duration, and task description length have been shown to affect participation rates [41,42]. Likewise, participant characteristics—such as creativity, intrinsic motivation, and domain expertise—significantly influence the innovativeness of submitted ideas [43,44].

To boost motivation and reduce drop-off, platforms can integrate components that support activation, aligning with users’ values and interests [45]. Furthermore, efficient idea screening remains a challenge, requiring ranking and evaluation tools such as ordinal optimisation [46]. These insights underscore that the architecture of participation, including governance, incentives, and interaction design, directly affects innovation outcomes [39,47].

This paper builds on the emerging body of work to examine how different crowdsourcing platforms communicate and structure innovation efforts to achieve sustainability goals. By comparing the communication strategies of three distinct platforms—OpenIDEO, San Francisco, CA, USA; Enel Innovation Hub, Rome, Italy; and InnoCentive, Waltham, MA, USA—this study explores how platform design shapes user engagement, sustainability framing, and participatory innovation. The findings are interpreted through the lens of open innovation and sustainability integration frameworks, contributing to the theoretical understanding of how digital platforms can mediate collective action for sustainable development.

The paper is organised into five sections. Section 2 outlines the theoretical foundations of open innovation, digital platforms, and sustainability communication, with particular attention to the mid-range theories guiding the analysis. Section 3 details the methodology, including the content analysis approach, coding framework, and research design. Section 4 presents the results of the comparative analysis of OpenIDEO, Enel Innovation Hub, and InnoCentive. Section 5 discusses the findings, drawing out implications for platform design, marketing, and policy, and situating platforms as cultural mediators of sustainability. Section 6 concludes by summarising the study’s contributions, identifying limitations, and pointing to future research directions.

2. Theoretical Background

The study of crowdsourced sustainability platforms requires a theoretical perspective that accounts for both structural and communicative dynamics. While broad theories of open innovation and sustainability transitions provide important background [4,14] mid-range theories allow for a closer linkage between institutional logics, communication strategies, and engagement architectures.

2.1. Mid-Range Theories and Crowdsourced Sustainability Platforms

Mid-range theories serve as a critical bridge between abstract conceptual frameworks and empirical observations, offering explanatory mechanisms that can be operationalised in comparative analysis [48,49]. Rather than aiming for universal coverage, mid-range theories focus on specific social and organisational processes, identifying patterns and mechanisms that explain observable dynamics [50]. They can be decomposed into conceptual frameworks, mechanism schemas, and clusters of mechanism-based explanations [51].

In the context of digital crowdsourcing platforms for sustainability, three mid-range theories are especially relevant: Motivation Crowding Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transaction Cost Theory [52]. Motivation Crowding Theory distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic motivators and highlights how financial incentives may sometimes “crowd out” intrinsic motivations such as purpose, belonging, or altruism. This concept of visible incentives explains how engagement mechanisms are sustained over time through transparency, recognition, and legitimacy. Incentives are “visible” when they are explicitly communicated, socially validated, and embedded in platform narratives. In civic platforms, visibility is created through storytelling of collective impact; in corporate platforms, through brand legitimacy and strategic partnerships; in market-based platforms, through financial rewards and solver recognition [18,23]. This perspective resonates with signalling theory and motivational crowding literature, which suggest that incentive visibility strongly affects trust, participation, and long-term commitment [53].

This has direct implications for platform engagement design, where the balance between monetary rewards (e.g., InnoCentive) and community-driven appeals (e.g., OpenIDEO) shapes participation levels and content quality.

Social Exchange Theory posits that relationships and engagement are built on reciprocal expectations of value, trust, and fairness [54]. The theory of participatory architectures highlights how different engagement structures generate distinct motivational pathways. Platforms designed for open co-creation tend to foster intrinsic motivation through shared ownership and collective purpose, whereas competitive contests or selective startup calls privilege extrinsic motivators such as financial rewards or access to scaling opportunities [19,45]. Participation structures can thus be considered motivational infrastructures that shape not only who contributes, but also the type and quality of contributions [39]. In crowdsourcing platforms, this translates into how participants perceive legitimacy, reciprocity, and recognition. Platforms that provide transparent feedback, recognition, and opportunities for collaboration are more likely to foster sustainable participation and build collective trust.

Transaction Cost Theory explains how organisations minimise the costs of coordinating innovation activities through governance mechanisms and structural design [55]. The coupling of platform governance and communication interfaces provides a lens for understanding how organisational logic translates into discursive practice. Governance extends beyond rules and incentives, as platforms also govern through communication design—interfaces, narratives, and tone—which shape how participants perceive legitimacy and authority [56,57]. Communication, therefore, functions as a governance tool: it signals who belongs, what counts as innovation, and how sustainability is framed [22].

Crowdsourcing platforms reduce traditional transaction costs by offering standardised infrastructures for idea solicitation, evaluation, and collaboration [58]. However, variations in governance models, from competition-based architectures to partnership-based ecosystems, shape the efficiency and inclusiveness of platform-mediated innovation.

These theories have been applied to study ICT4D [59], activity systems [60], and the theoretical maturity of crowdsourcing as an emerging socio-technical phenomenon [61]. Together, they provide explanatory power for understanding how platform communication strategies influence participation, trust, and sustainability outcomes.

2.2. Open Innovation and Platform Studies

Theories of open innovation emphasise the role of external knowledge flows and collaborative problem-solving in enhancing innovation outcomes [31]. Crowdsourcing platforms embody this principle by mobilising distributed expertise and enabling firms to access solutions beyond organisational boundaries. Recent work shows that open innovation strategies mediated by digital platforms can improve sustainable innovation performance by integrating diverse stakeholders and reconfiguring capabilities [13].

Platform studies complement this perspective by conceptualising digital platforms as meta-organisations that orchestrate multi-actor interactions, reduce transaction costs, and enable new forms of coordination and value creation [62]. In sustainability contexts, platforms function as ecosystems that align participants around shared goals, facilitate knowledge exchange, and balance economic, environmental, and social priorities [10].

2.3. Sustainability Communication and Collective Sense-Making

A third theoretical strand concerns sustainability communication. Here, communication is understood not only as the transfer of information but as a transformative process that enables stakeholder alignment, trust-building, and collective sense-making [22,63]. Framing sustainability challenges, invoking legitimacy signals (e.g., SDG alignment), and fostering interactive dialogue are central to mobilising engagement and trust. In this way, platforms act as cultural mediators of sustainability, shaping narratives, motivations, and perceptions of legitimacy [14].

While sensemaking and sensegiving provide powerful frameworks for explaining how organisations interpret their environment and communicate visions to stakeholders, our approach contributes by specifying the mechanisms that link communicative processes to platform architectures and participation outcomes [64,65,66]. The integration of Motivation Crowding Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transaction Cost Theory complements sensemaking by highlighting (1) how different motivational framings avoid or trigger crowding-out effects, (2) how reciprocity and legitimacy signals sustain engagement over time, and (3) how governance designs reduce coordination and search costs, shaping inclusiveness and efficiency. This operational focus offers explanatory leverage that pure sensemaking approaches often leave underexplored. Thus, the proposed framework does not replace sensemaking but extends it by showing how motivational, relational, and structural mechanisms collectively influence sustainability-oriented innovation on digital platforms.

2.4. Integrative Framework

Taken together, these mid-range theories and conceptual strands provide the analytical scaffolding for this study. Motivation Crowding Theory explains the interplay of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives in engagement strategies. Social Exchange Theory clarifies how legitimacy and reciprocity shape trust and participation. Transaction Cost Theory illuminates how participation architecture’s structure, collaboration, and efficiency. Open innovation and platform studies explain the systemic role of platforms as orchestrators of sustainability innovation, while sustainability communication highlights their function as cultural mediators. They offer a framework for analysing the communicative architectures of digital platforms and their implications for sustainability-oriented innovation. This theoretical scaffolding directly informs the coding dimensions used in the study. It establishes the causal chain explored in the results (Figure 1):

This integrated framework directly informed the coding categories (Supplementary Materials S1 and S2) and the comparative analysis of OpenIDEO, San Francisco, CA, USA; Enel Innovation Hub, Rome, Italy; and InnoCentive, Waltham, MA, USA.

3. Materials and Methods

This study employs a qualitative, interpretive research design, utilising directed content analysis [67] to investigate how digital crowdsourcing platforms convey sustainability-oriented innovation. The analysis focuses on the strategic narratives, discursive practices, and communicative mechanisms employed by platforms to engage stakeholders in co-creation processes. This approach is appropriate for examining how platforms shape participant behaviour, mediate innovation dynamics, and align open innovation practices with sustainability goals.

The methodological strategy draws on established procedures for analysing digital platform communication [31,45], considering not only the content of messages but also how content is framed, structured, and directed toward different types of participants. By comparing platforms with different institutional logics—public, corporate, and market-based—this study explores how these differences manifest in their communication strategies for promoting sustainability and innovation.

Building on the theoretical background, the study addresses the following research questions (RQs):

• RQ1: How do digital crowdsourcing platforms communicate their sustainability goals and innovation strategies?
• RQ2: What communicative strategies are used to engage and motivate stakeholder participation in sustainability-focused innovation?
• RQ3: How does the framing of sustainability differ across platforms with distinct institutional contexts?

Notably, based on the mid-range mechanisms of Motivation Crowding Theory, Social Exchange Theory, Transaction Cost Theory, and the concepts of governance–communication coupling, participatory architectures, and visible incentives, this study proposes the following assumptions:

A1—Assumption 1 (Civic platforms use inclusive, purpose-driven language): Drawing on Motivation Crowding Theory and Social Exchange Theory, it is expected that civic-oriented platforms will rely on inclusive, emotionally resonant communication that frames sustainability as a shared mission. By appealing to intrinsic motivators such as purpose, belonging, and reciprocity, these platforms foster trust and co-creation [14,45].

A2—Assumption 2 (Corporate platforms focus on strategic and technical framings): Informed by Transaction Cost Theory and the concept of governance–communication coupling, corporate platforms are assumed to frame sustainability in terms of strategic alignment, technical solutions, and scalability. Their communication reflects efficiency-oriented institutional logics, with a focus on business integration and resource optimisation [10,12].

A3—Assumption 3 (Market platforms use transactional, performance-oriented messaging): Building on Motivation Crowding Theory and the concept of visible incentives, market-driven platforms are expected to communicate sustainability in transactional terms, centred on monetary rewards, competition, and problem-solving efficiency. This reflects an extrinsic motivational architecture where incentives are obvious and tied to solver performance [18,41].

These assumptions align with prior research suggesting that communication styles and participation architectures are shaped by platform goals, sectoral contexts, and underlying values [18,22,32].

A purposive sampling strategy was adopted to select digital crowdsourcing platforms for analysis. Four criteria guided the selection: (1) explicit sustainability orientation, requiring platforms to frame innovation challenges about sustainability, the environment, or Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs); (2) recency and activity, with platforms hosting active projects or challenges between 2022 and 2023; (3) availability of communication content, ensuring that challenge briefs, blogs, FAQs, and explanatory materials were publicly accessible for systematic collection; and (4) diversity of platform models, enabling comparison across distinct approaches to crowdsourced innovation. Based on these criteria, three platforms were selected: OpenIDEO (a civic and social innovation platform), Enel Innovation Hub (a corporate innovation hub), and InnoCentive (a market-oriented challenge platform). This selection enables both cross-case comparison and in-depth qualitative analysis while maintaining analytic manageability. Other platforms considered at the scoping stage, such as HeroX, Kaggle, Challenge.gov, and MIT Climate CoLab, were excluded because they either lacked consistent sustainability framing (HeroX, Kaggle), presented governance and audience contexts that were not directly comparable (Challenge.gov), or were inactive during the study period (MIT Climate CoLab).

Data were collected from publicly available digital content published on the platforms’ official websites and associated communication channels (see Supplementary Materials S3) over 12 months (July 2024–June 2025). The dataset included

• Homepage and “About” pages
• Challenge calls and submission pages
• Blogs, success stories, and featured projects
• FAQ sections and community guidelines
• Select social media posts (LinkedIn, Twitter /X) for campaign visibility

All data analysed in this study were collected from publicly accessible webpages and official communication channels of the three platforms (OpenIDEO, Enel Innovation Hub, and InnoCentive). No private or user-generated content requiring authentication was included. Data collection was limited to materials permitted under the respective platforms’ Terms of Service and robots.txt protocols. To ensure anonymity and ethical integrity, no personal identifiers of individual contributors were stored or reported. As the study focused exclusively on organisational communication strategies and publicly available content, it did not involve human subjects’ research. Therefore, it was exempt from Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval under prevailing guidelines for non-interactive, public-domain research. This approach aligns with best practices for ethical digital research and legal compliance in platform studies.

This dataset was organised into platform-specific corpora and imported into qualitative analysis software (NVivo 14) for coding and thematic exploration (see Supplementary Materials S1 and S2). The content analysis followed a deductive–inductive coding strategy. Initial categories were derived from the theoretical background and literature on platform communication and sustainability (e.g., [13,35,47]). These included

• Sustainability Framing (e.g., environmental, social, economic, triple bottom line)
• Engagement and Motivation Strategies (e.g., emotional appeal, monetary incentive, community belonging)
• Participation Architecture (e.g., co-creation, competition, partnership)
• Legitimacy Signals (e.g., partnerships, certifications, success stories)
• Narrative Style (e.g., personal, corporate, technical, inclusive)

Thematic analysis was then applied to identify how these strategies were articulated across the three platforms. Emerging themes were identified, and the coding scheme was iteratively refined to accommodate platform-specific nuances. Findings were compared across cases to detect patterns, divergences, and alignment with the proposed assumptions.

To ensure credibility and analytical rigour, triangulation was employed across platform content types (challenge briefs, FAQs, blogs, landing pages) and data sources. Support was established when ≥25% of textual content (challenge briefs, homepage statements, FAQs) within a platform explicitly invoked a sustainability framework or motivational appeal during the study period. SDG alignment was coded as explicit when numeric goals/targets were directly mentioned (e.g., SDG 13: Climate Action), and implicit when concepts were semantically related but not labelled (e.g., ‘decarbonisation’, ‘energy transition’). Double-coding checks were applied on a 15% subsample. Coding consistency was enhanced through iterative testing, reflexive memoing (systematic memo-writing to document coding decisions, emerging insights, and potential biases [68,69], and external peer debriefing with colleagues not directly involved in the study. Although inter-coder reliability statistics (e.g., Cohen’s κ) could not be calculated due to single authorship, reliability was supported by transparent code definitions, representative excerpts, and negative cases (see Supplementary Materials S1). This reflexive and transparent approach aligns with best practices for qualitative content analysis and strengthens the trustworthiness of the findings [70].

However, the study acknowledges the following limitations:

• Analysis was restricted to externally visible communication and does not capture internal platform dynamics or user-generated content.
• The study is qualitative and exploratory, limiting generalizability but enabling deep contextual insight.
• Temporal limitations may affect findings, as platform strategies evolve.

At the time of the research, all the links used and identified in the results section and Supplementary Materials were available. However, upon revising this research, some of the webpages were no longer accessible at the links used to retrieve the information. When original web pages were no longer active, archival snapshots retrieved from the Wayback Machine or third-party sources (e.g., Better Giving Studio, WASHplus, and PHENND) were used to confirm content accuracy. At the time of verification, OpenIDEO displayed the message “No active OpenIDEO challenges at the moment,” indicating that interactive challenge functions are paused, though legacy content remains accessible. The Enel Innovation Hub domain (startup.enel.com) was found to be inaccessible (502 Bad Gateway error); therefore, corresponding materials were verified through Enel’s Open Innovability portal (openinnovability.enel.com) and corporate stories. InnoCentive remains fully active, continuing to host live and archived challenges on its Innovation Marketplace. Therefore, it was possible to incorporate a table with new links to the retrieved information in Supplementary Materials S3, ensuring reproducibility and data transparency. All URLs were logged and cross-verified as of October 2025.

Despite these constraints, this methodology provides a robust framework for exploring the communicative dimensions of crowdsourced innovation for sustainability, offering both theoretical and practical insights into platform design and stakeholder engagement.

4. Results

This section presents the results of a directed content analysis conducted on the digital communication strategies of three distinct crowdsourcing platforms: OpenIDEO, Enel Innovation Hub, and InnoCentive. The platforms were selected to represent different institutional logics, civic, corporate, and market-based, and to examine how each frames sustainability, innovation, and stakeholder engagement. Analysis focused on thematic categories derived from the theoretical framework, including sustainability framing, motivational appeals, participation architecture, and legitimacy strategies.

4.1. Analysis of the Platforms Selected

The analysis of the platforms selected includes representative quotations from the three platforms across the four analytical dimensions: sustainability framing, motivational appeals, engagement structures, and legitimacy signals. The verbatim citations include the source URL and extraction date to ensure transparency (in text and Supplementary Materials S4). A keyword frequency summary is also provided to support the thematic analysis empirically (see

Table 1. Keyword Frequency Summary.

Keyword/Expression	OpenIDEO	Enel Hub	InnoCentive	Total Mentions
“Sustainability”	38	26	10	74
“SDG”/“Sustainable Development Goals”	12	9	0	21
“Community”/“Collaboration”	29	6	6	41
“TRL” (Technology Readiness Level)	0	14	0	14
“Prize”/“Award”	0	2	17	19
“Climate”/“Energy transition”	6	11	4	21

).

4.1.1. OpenIDEO: Co-Creation and Purpose-Driven Engagement

OpenIDEO (https://www.openideo.com/retrieved 10 July 2024) is a platform hosted by IDEO, a global design and innovation firm. Its communication strategy is centred on fostering inclusive participation and enabling community-led problem-solving in alignment with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• Sustainability Framing: Sustainability is presented as a moral and systemic imperative. Challenges are framed in relation to the SDGs and issues such as climate resilience, food security, and educational equity. The tone emphasises equity, justice, and long-term impact.

“We design challenges aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals to build a more just and inclusive future” (OpenIDEO, About page, https://www.openideo.com/about, retrieved 10 July 2024).

• Motivational Appeals: OpenIDEO prioritises intrinsic motivation through appeals to purpose, community belonging, and the opportunity to create social change. Phrases such as “join a global community of changemakers” and “co-create a better future” were frequent throughout its site and challenge pages.

“Join a global community of changemakers and shape meaningful impact through collaboration” (OpenIDEO, Challenge page, https://www.openideo.com/challenges, retrieved 10 July 2024).

• Participation Architecture: The platform supports open co-creation, where users can submit, remix, and comment on each other’s ideas. The process is participatory and feedback-driven, with emphasis on iteration and shared ownership.

“Ideas evolve through feedback loops, peer support, and shared ownership” (OpenIDEO, Challenge brief, https://www.openideo.com/challenges, retrieved 12 July 2024).

• Legitimacy Strategies: OpenIDEO leverages its partnerships with organisations such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the UNDP, and various philanthropic actors to establish trust and credibility. Case studies and storytelling elements are used to humanise impact and demonstrate platform success.

“Powered by IDEO.org and supported by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation” (OpenIDEO, Landing page, https://www.openideo.com, retrieved 10 July 2024).

OpenIDEO’s overall strategy reflects a civic innovation model, characterised by narrative-rich, emotionally resonant, and inclusively framed communication, which strongly supports Assumption 1.

4.1.2. Enel Innovation Hub: Strategic Framing for Scalable Technological Solutions

The Enel Innovation Hub (https://startup.enel.com/, retrieved 10 July 2024) is a corporate open innovation platform operated by the multinational energy company Enel. Its communication approach reflects a technocratic and investment-oriented logic, focused on energy transition, digitalisation, and smart infrastructure.

• Sustainability Framing: Sustainability is framed in terms of technological innovation and economic scalability. Key themes include decarbonisation, electrification, and circular economy models. The platform frequently links innovation to climate objectives and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) metrics.

“Our mission aligns with the UN Sustainable Development Goals, particularly energy transition and climate action” (Enel Innovation Hub, About page, https://startup.enel.com/, retrieved 20 July 2024).

• Motivational Appeals: The platform primarily appeals to extrinsic motivators, such as access to funding, piloting opportunities, and international scaling through Enel’s global network. Messaging highlights value propositions like “scale globally with Enel” and “test your solution with real clients.”

“Scale your solution with Enel’s global innovation ecosystem and gain access to real market opportunities” (Enel Innovation Hub, Project page, https://startup.enel.com/projects, retrieved 22 July 2024).

• Participation Architecture: Participation is structured around competitive calls for startups and scale-ups. Submissions are evaluated based on technological readiness levels (TRL—Technology Readiness Level), and selected projects are integrated into Enel’s business lines through co-development.

“Apply now for a chance to co-develop your technology with Enel business lines” (Enel Innovation Hub, Projects page, https://startup.enel.com/projects, retrieved 22 July 2024).

• Legitimacy Strategies: Enel relies heavily on its corporate brand and global infrastructure to legitimise its open innovation efforts. The presence of regional innovation hubs in Israel, the US, and Chile is highlighted, along with success stories from portfolio startups.

“Global hubs in Israel, the US, and Chile ensure regional access and business scalability” (Enel Innovation Hub, About page, https://startup.enel.com/, retrieved 20 July 2024).

Enel Innovation Hub demonstrates a corporate innovation communication model, aligned with Assumptions 2, where sustainability is tied to business strategy and platform messaging targets experienced, technical innovators.

4.1.3. InnoCentive: Problem-Solving Through Expert-Driven Contests

InnoCentive (https://www.innocentive.com/retrieved 1 August 2024) is a global open innovation platform that connects “seekers” (e.g., corporations, NGOs, governments) with a global community of “solvers” (scientists, engineers, and researchers). Its communication is transactional, technical, and oriented toward challenge resolution.

• Sustainability Framing: Sustainability is treated as a functional problem domain—e.g., replacing toxic materials, improving renewable energy storage, or reducing emissions. The platform does not centrally promote sustainability narratives but incorporates them into specific challenge briefs.

“This challenge supports global sustainability by reducing water waste in agricultural systems” (InnoCentive, Challenge brief, https://www.innocentive.com/challenges, retrieved 2 August 2024).

• Motivational Appeals: The platform centres on monetary rewards and professional recognition. Calls include phrases such as “win $25,000 for your solution” and “your idea could make a global impact.” The tone is competitive and expertise-driven.

“Submit your solution and win up to $25,000 for the best technical proposal” (InnoCentive, Challenge page, https://www.innocentive.com/challenges, retrieved 2 August 2024).

• Participation Architecture: Participation is framed around challenge-based problem-solving. Solvers work independently and anonymously. The process is non-collaborative and output-oriented, with detailed submission requirements and evaluation criteria.

“This is a Theoretical Challenge: we seek white papers with robust validation models” (InnoCentive, Challenge brief, https://www.innocentive.com/challenges, retrieved 2 August 2024).

• Legitimacy Strategies: InnoCentive builds trust through its history of partnerships with organisations such as NASA, the World Bank, and Fortune 500 companies. It emphasises the volume of solved challenges and the professional credibility of its solver base.

“In collaboration with NASA and the World Bank Innovation Lab” (InnoCentive, Challenge brief, https://www.innocentive.com/challenges, retrieved 5 August 2024).

InnoCentive illustrates a market-based innovation model, supporting Assumption 3, where communication focuses on solution delivery, competitive incentives, and domain-specific problem resolution.

The word-frequency analysis of the full dataset (approximately 39,200 words), presented in Supplementary Materials S3, provides quantitative evidence that reinforces and nuances the thematic findings. Evident platform-specific emphases emerge. OpenIDEO highlights community-oriented and sustainability framing, with the highest frequency of references to “sustainability” (38 mentions), “community/collaboration” (29 mentions), and “SDGs” (12 mentions). This linguistic pattern reflects OpenIDEO’s participatory ethos and its alignment with global development agendas. Enel Innovation Hub, by contrast, emphasises technical validation and scalability, as indicated by the prominence of “TRL” (14 mentions) and a comparatively higher emphasis on “climate/energy transition” (11 mentions). This reflects Enel’s corporate orientation, where sustainability is framed through technological readiness and integration into energy markets. Finally, InnoCentive distinguishes itself through the frequent use of terms associated with monetary incentives and competition, with “prize/award” appearing 17 times—the dominant motivational framing in its corpus. References to sustainability (10 mentions) and climate (4 mentions) are present but less salient compared to the emphasis on financial reward structures.

Overall, these patterns show that platform communication strategies are linguistically aligned with their underlying participation architectures: OpenIDEO fosters a sense of collective belonging and global purpose; Enel positions itself as a corporate partner in technological innovation; and InnoCentive foregrounds competitive rewards. The results also illustrate differential alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals, with OpenIDEO and Enel referencing them explicitly, while InnoCentive’s discourse largely omits them. This demonstrates how language not only reflects but also constructs the types of engagement, legitimacy, and innovation outcomes that each platform seeks to promote.

4.2. Cross-Case Comparison and Pattern Synthesis

The results are presented in alignment with the theoretical framework, which highlighted three mid-range mechanisms: the coupling of governance and communication interfaces, the role of participatory architectures, and the function of visible incentives. These mechanisms provide the analytical scaffolding for interpreting how organisational logics (civic, corporate, market-based) translate into distinct communicative strategies, engagement structures, and sustainability orientations. To make these relationships explicit, Figure 2 presents a conceptual map that visually represents the causal chain, thereby illustrating how institutional identity is enacted through communication, how engagement architectures condition motivational dynamics, and how visible incentives sustain legitimacy. Table 2 synthesises the comparative dimensions of platform communication profiles, while Table 3 links these findings to the tested hypotheses.

Building on the core findings, this subsection reflects on the broader implications of the content analysis by addressing the following guiding perspectives: common strategies, alignment with the SDGs, authenticity of participation, communicative mechanisms, types of innovations, and perceived impact.

The conceptual map presented (Figure 2) synthesises the findings of the comparative content analysis by illustrating the causal chain linking organisational logic, communication style, engagement structure, and resulting innovation orientation/SDG alignment. The model makes explicit that institutional logics (civic, corporate, market-based) shape distinct communicative approaches, which in turn determine how participants are mobilised and engaged (e.g., co-creation, startup co-development, or contests).

These engagement structures condition not only the type of innovation generated, social, technological, or technical, but also the degree to which such innovation aligns with the United Nations SDGs. It also provides a heuristic tool for scholars, policymakers, and platform designers seeking to understand and optimise the communicative mechanisms through which digital platforms foster sustainability-oriented innovation.

To strengthen the cross-case comparison, keyword frequency analysis (Table 1) was explicitly linked to the analytical dimensions presented in Table 2 and Table 3. The quantification confirms and complements the qualitative coding: OpenIDEO emphasises inclusive framing through terms such as “community” and “SDG”; Enel Innovation Hub highlights technical maturity with repeated references to “TRL” and “scale”; InnoCentive foregrounds transactional incentives with higher mentions of “prize”, “award”, and “pilot”. Keywords were extracted from the full dataset (≈39,200 words) using NVivo text queries, focusing on sustainability-related expressions (sustainability, SDG, climate), engagement terms (community, collaboration), technical readiness (TRL, scale, pilot), and incentive-related language (prize, award). This lightweight quantification thus provides an empirical foundation for the qualitative interpretation of organisational logics and communication strategies, aligning with the comparative insights summarised in Table 2 and Table 3.

The comparative analysis reveals distinct communicative profiles (Table 2):

Table 2. Comparative analysis of communication profiles and platform logics.

Dimension	Definition (Coding Category)	OpenIDEO	Enel Innovation Hub	InnoCentive
Sustainability Framing	How sustainability is presented: environmental, social, economic, or SDG-based framing.	Explicit SDG alignment: challenges framed around global issues (e.g., health, climate, equity).	Focus on clean energy transition, technical readiness, and corporate sustainability targets.	Sustainability is less explicit, framed through efficiency and technical problem-solving.
Motivational Appeal	Strategies used to encourage participation: intrinsic (values, belonging) vs. extrinsic (prizes, recognition).	Emphasises purpose, community belonging, and collective action.	Mix of purpose-driven framing (energy transition) and opportunities for scaling solutions.	Primarily extrinsic: prizes, financial rewards, recognition.
Engagement Structure	Mechanisms for user involvement: co-creation, competition, partnership, and feedback loops.	Inclusive co-creation, iterative feedback, peer interaction, storytelling.	Selective partnerships with startups and SMEs; focus on Proof-of-Concept projects.	Competitive challenge-based architecture; expert-oriented problem-solving.
Legitimacy Signals	Platforms build credibility through partnerships, certifications, and success stories.	Partnerships with NGOs, global institutions, open feedback and transparent review.	Legitimacy via corporate brand, strategic alliances, and energy sector leadership.	Legitimacy from corporate clients, expert validators, and prize sponsors.

Note: Dimensions were defined deductively based on prior literature [18,19,23].

Table 2. Comparative analysis of communication profiles and platform logics.

Dimension	Definition (Coding Category)	OpenIDEO	Enel Innovation Hub	InnoCentive
Sustainability Framing	How sustainability is presented: environmental, social, economic, or SDG-based framing.	Explicit SDG alignment: challenges framed around global issues (e.g., health, climate, equity).	Focus on clean energy transition, technical readiness, and corporate sustainability targets.	Sustainability is less explicit, framed through efficiency and technical problem-solving.
Motivational Appeal	Strategies used to encourage participation: intrinsic (values, belonging) vs. extrinsic (prizes, recognition).	Emphasises purpose, community belonging, and collective action.	Mix of purpose-driven framing (energy transition) and opportunities for scaling solutions.	Primarily extrinsic: prizes, financial rewards, recognition.
Engagement Structure	Mechanisms for user involvement: co-creation, competition, partnership, and feedback loops.	Inclusive co-creation, iterative feedback, peer interaction, storytelling.	Selective partnerships with startups and SMEs; focus on Proof-of-Concept projects.	Competitive challenge-based architecture; expert-oriented problem-solving.
Legitimacy Signals	Platforms build credibility through partnerships, certifications, and success stories.	Partnerships with NGOs, global institutions, open feedback and transparent review.	Legitimacy via corporate brand, strategic alliances, and energy sector leadership.	Legitimacy from corporate clients, expert validators, and prize sponsors.

Note: Dimensions were defined deductively based on prior literature [18,19,23].

These findings suggest that platform communication strategies are strongly shaped by institutional identity and innovation logic, giving evidence to all three proposed assumptions. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the crucial role of communication in not only attracting participation but also in framing sustainability as either a shared responsibility or a technical challenge, depending on the platform.

The analysis reveals that communication strategies differ significantly across platforms, but three dominant modalities were observed:

• OpenIDEO employs emotional appeal and narrative framing, using inclusive and purpose-driven language to connect participants to a shared mission. Phrases like “co-create a better world” and visual storytelling (e.g., changemaker journeys, community spotlights) reflect an ethos of transformative engagement.
• Enel Innovation Hub integrates technical language, data-driven legitimacy, and business-oriented framing, emphasising innovation readiness levels, scaling potential, and alignment with ESG goals.
• InnoCentive adopts a transactional style, focused on problem specification, deliverables, deadlines, and reward mechanisms, with minimal emotional or narrative content.

Thus, emotional appeals dominate in civic platforms, while technical and performance-centric communication is prevalent in corporate and market-based platforms, respectively.

OpenIDEO demonstrates the most substantial and most explicit alignment with the SDGs. Its challenge campaigns regularly reference specific goals such as SDG 2 (Zero Hunger), SDG 4 (Quality Education), and SDG 13 (Climate Action), and its storytelling emphasises systemic change and global equity.

Enel Innovation Hub indirectly aligns with SDGs, primarily SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production), by promoting circularity, electrification, and clean technology. However, these connections are framed in corporate and investment terms, rather than within the context of global development discourse.

InnoCentive presents a more fragmented alignment. Some challenge briefs support sustainability-related outcomes (e.g., environmental protection, energy efficiency), but the platform does not consistently frame its work in terms of the SDGs or sustainability discourse.

Overall, only OpenIDEO communicates SDG alignment as a core narrative. The others reference sustainability goals instrumentally or implicitly, often without consistent strategic messaging.

The participation architecture of OpenIDEO reflects authentic co-creation, where users can submit ideas, provide feedback, and co-develop solutions through transparent, iterative cycles. Community updates and peer recognition reinforce a sense of ownership.

Enel Innovation Hub, while participatory in principle, offers limited transparency regarding selection processes. Startups submit high-barrier proposals, and engagement appears transactional and top-down, with Enel as the gatekeeper.

InnoCentive reflects a contest-based, anonymous participation model that lacks community feedback, iterative dialogue, or horizontal collaboration. While effective for targeted problem-solving, it represents minimal co-creation.

Therefore, only OpenIDEO demonstrates real participatory innovation. In contrast, the others exhibit selective participation largely driven by organisational filtering or performance outcomes, suggesting elements of tokenism or strategic branding in their communication.

Regarding the language and channels’ impact on engagement, it is possible to observe that the language and tone emerged as critical variables:

• OpenIDEO’s use of inclusive, human-centred, and emotionally engaging language encourages broad community involvement, particularly among non-experts, students, and NGOs. Multimodal channels (e.g., blog, video, social media) reinforce this accessibility.
• Enel Innovation Hub communicates in formal, technical, and investment-focused language, targeting innovation professionals and startups with advanced technology readiness. Its visuals are clean, data-rich, and aligned with corporate branding.
• InnoCentive’s communication is functionally minimalist, structured around challenge requirements and deliverables, with limited visual engagement or relational storytelling.

Thus, platform tone and channel use are closely tied to the type of engagement they seek—co-creative, competitive, or contractual—and directly influence who participates and how they participate.

As said, effective communication plays a crucial role in establishing legitimacy, trust, and relational depth:

• OpenIDEO achieves this through transparent community processes, visual testimonials, and frequent updates.
• Enel Innovation Hub utilises reputation and institutional signalling, highlighting its global reach and success metrics.
• InnoCentive builds trust via track records and brand partnerships, but offers little user-facing transparency or community interaction.

Hence, platform trust is built either through relational transparency (OpenIDEO) or institutional credibility (Enel, InnoCentive), but the former appears more conducive to deep, sustained engagement.

While this study did not evaluate final innovation outputs, communicative framing gives insight into innovation orientations:

• OpenIDEO promotes grassroots and social innovations, such as community health tools, inclusive education platforms, or food systems redesign, often derived from local knowledge.
• Enel Innovation Hub supports technological and infrastructural innovations, particularly in renewable energy, smart grids, and mobility.
• InnoCentive hosts targeted technical challenges, often aimed at solving discrete scientific or engineering problems, including biodegradable packaging or clean tech materials.

This differentiation illustrates how platform discourse frames not only participation but also the types of ideas that emerge and are valued.

While a comprehensive impact assessment is beyond the scope of this communication analysis, some indicators are visible:

• OpenIDEO publishes success stories, pilot updates, and community impacts, illustrating real-world application and learning loops.
• Enel Innovation Hub references startup integrations and co-development milestones, highlighting scaling successes, particularly in clean tech and infrastructure.
• InnoCentive provides limited post-challenge feedback, though it references “solved” challenges and industry applications.

Thus, OpenIDEO provides the most unmistakable evidence of social innovation outcomes and policy relevance, whereas Enel focuses on commercial deployment and InnoCentive on technical feasibility.

This in-depth perspective reinforces the conclusion that platform communication is not only strategic but performative it defines expectations, values, and engagement possibilities, thereby shaping the contours of sustainable innovation ecosystems.

The content analysis of OpenIDEO, Enel Innovation Hub, and InnoCentive provides clear, differentiated evidence to answer the three research questions and test the associated hypotheses.

RQ1: How do digital crowdsourcing platforms communicate their sustainability goals and innovation strategies?

Each platform demonstrates a distinctive communication style that reflects its organisational mission and stakeholder orientation:

• OpenIDEO communicates sustainability as a shared social mission, using emotionally resonant and narrative-rich language to highlight values such as equity, inclusivity, and global solidarity.
• Enel Innovation Hub emphasises technological innovation for strategic sustainability, highlighting investment potential, scalability, and alignment with the energy transition.
• InnoCentive frames sustainability as a technical problem-solving domain, embedded in challenge briefs with limited narrative development or explicit value framing.

This supports the conclusion that sustainability communication is deeply contextual and platform-dependent, strongly suggesting the theoretical proposition that platform logic shapes discourse [13,22].

RQ2: What communicative strategies are used to engage and motivate stakeholder participation in sustainability-focused innovation?

• OpenIDEO relies on intrinsic motivators, such as personal fulfilment, social belonging, and purpose alignment.
• Enel Innovation Hub utilises extrinsic motivators, including pilot programmes, access to funding, and international exposure.
• InnoCentive promotes performance-based rewards, targeting solvers through cash prizes, professional status, and tangible outcomes.

These findings validate the notion that motivational appeals are aligned with participation architecture, with co-creation platforms favouring intrinsic motivation and contest platforms leveraging extrinsic incentives [18,45]. The results strongly support Assumptions A1, A2, and A3, respectively.

RQ3: How does the framing of sustainability differ across platforms with distinct institutional contexts?

• Civic-oriented platforms (OpenIDEO) frame sustainability as a moral imperative and collective opportunity, aiming to foster democratic participation and shared value.
• Corporate platforms (Enel Innovation Hub) frame sustainability as an economic and technological challenge, focusing on innovation that aligns with strategic business goals and ESG frameworks.
• Market-driven platforms (InnoCentive) frame sustainability as a technical task to be solved, with minimal engagement in broader social or environmental narratives.

This confirms that sustainability is not a fixed concept across platforms, but rather a strategically framed discourse, shaped by institutional context and communicative intention [31,35]. The analysis further supports all three assumptions (Table 3), demonstrating that communication aligns closely with the platform’s mission and user targeting strategies.

Table 3. Summary of Assumptions Testing.

Assumption	Definition/ Rationale	Operational Criteria	Evidence Found	Outcome
A1: Platforms with civic logics (e.g., OpenIDEO) emphasise SDG alignment and inclusive framing.	Based on institutional logic theory and sustainability communication literature.	Explicit references to SDGs on the homepage and challenge briefs; frequent use of inclusive/community vocabulary.	≥12 mentions of SDGs; high frequency of “community” (29 mentions).	Evidence consistent with A1.
A2: Enterprise-driven platforms (e.g., Enel Hub) emphasise technical readiness and scalability.	Based on Transaction Cost Theory (efficiency, coordination) and corporate innovation models.	Frequent references to TRL (≥10); framing sustainability in terms of “transition” and technical outcomes.	14 mentions of TRL; emphasis on clean energy transition.	Evidence consistent with A2.
A3: Market-based platforms (e.g., InnoCentive) rely on extrinsic motivators and competitive framing.	Based on Motivation Crowding Theory and contest design literature.	Frequent mentions of “prize/award”; limited community/SDG references.	17 mentions of “prize/award”; low SDG/community alignment.	Evidence consistent with A3.

Table 3. Summary of Assumptions Testing.

Assumption	Definition/ Rationale	Operational Criteria	Evidence Found	Outcome
A1: Platforms with civic logics (e.g., OpenIDEO) emphasise SDG alignment and inclusive framing.	Based on institutional logic theory and sustainability communication literature.	Explicit references to SDGs on the homepage and challenge briefs; frequent use of inclusive/community vocabulary.	≥12 mentions of SDGs; high frequency of “community” (29 mentions).	Evidence consistent with A1.
A2: Enterprise-driven platforms (e.g., Enel Hub) emphasise technical readiness and scalability.	Based on Transaction Cost Theory (efficiency, coordination) and corporate innovation models.	Frequent references to TRL (≥10); framing sustainability in terms of “transition” and technical outcomes.	14 mentions of TRL; emphasis on clean energy transition.	Evidence consistent with A2.
A3: Market-based platforms (e.g., InnoCentive) rely on extrinsic motivators and competitive framing.	Based on Motivation Crowding Theory and contest design literature.	Frequent mentions of “prize/award”; limited community/SDG references.	17 mentions of “prize/award”; low SDG/community alignment.	Evidence consistent with A3.

This synthesis confirms that platform communication is not neutral; rather, it is a powerful design element that conditions how innovation is invited, legitimised, and aligned with sustainability goals. These insights provide a strong foundation for discussing the implications of communication strategies for open innovation ecosystems.

5. Discussion

5.1. Overall Reflection

This study set out to investigate how digital crowdsourcing platforms communicate sustainability-oriented innovation and engage stakeholders in collective problem-solving. Drawing on a comparative content analysis of OpenIDEO, Enel Innovation Hub, and InnoCentive, the findings strongly suggest that platform communication is not simply descriptive but constitutive of innovation dynamics. The conceptual map (Figure 2) illustrates this causal chain, showing how organisational logics are enacted through communicative styles, how these styles condition participatory architectures, and how engagement structures, in turn, determine innovation orientation and SDG alignment. In this sense, the map demonstrates that communication operates as a performative governance tool: it sets expectations, defines motivational infrastructures, and renders incentives visible. Civic platforms like OpenIDEO create visible incentives through storytelling and inclusive narratives, and corporate platforms such as Enel leverage strategic branding and technical framing. In contrast, market-based platforms like InnoCentive rely on transactional incentives and professional recognition. By making these mechanisms explicit, the map underscores that platform design is not neutral but deeply consequential, shaping both who participates and what kinds of sustainability outcomes emerge.

The word-frequency analysis supports this interpretation. For instance, OpenIDEO’s frequent use of terms such as “community,” “collaboration,” and explicit references to “SDGs” reflects its inclusive and participatory ethos. By contrast, Enel Innovation Hub’s emphasis on “TRL” and “energy transition” signals a technical and corporate orientation. At the same time, InnoCentive’s reliance on “prize” and “award” language illustrates its transactional and competition-driven logic. These linguistic patterns corroborate the thematic findings, demonstrating that communication strategies are closely tied to each platform’s innovation architecture. This has important implications for policymakers and platform designers, as it suggests that intentional design of communication and incentive visibility can expand inclusiveness, strengthen trust, and enhance alignment with the SDGs.

From a theoretical perspective, the findings can be understood through the lenses of Motivation Crowding Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transaction Cost Theory. OpenIDEO exemplifies how intrinsic motivation is fostered through narrative, SDG alignment, and emotional appeal, thereby avoiding the “crowding out” effect associated with excessive reliance on extrinsic rewards [56]. In contrast, InnoCentive relies heavily on extrinsic motivators (e.g., prizes, awards), which may attract expert solvers but risk narrowing participation [71]. Social Exchange Theory helps explain why legitimacy signals—such as partnerships, transparent feedback loops, and SDG framing—matter: platforms that create reciprocity and recognition, as OpenIDEO does, are better able to sustain trust and long-term engagement [57,72].

Transaction Cost Theory further clarifies why enterprise-driven platforms like Enel Innovation Hub and InnoCentive adopt structured, selective participation architectures: by reducing search and coordination costs, they maximise efficiency but constrain inclusiveness [55]. Collectively, these mid-range theories demonstrate how communication strategies mediate between structural design and user engagement, shaping who participates and under what conditions [52].

At the same time, one of the most significant outcomes of this study is that platform-based communication is not merely functional; it is also performative and constitutive. The language, tone, participation mechanisms, and visual storytelling employed by platforms actively shape how users perceive sustainability, define innovation priorities, and decide whether to engage [18,22]. Platforms like OpenIDEO demonstrate that inclusive, emotionally resonant communication can build community trust, foster motivation, and invite diverse contributions aligned with social and environmental goals. Its precise alignment with the SDGs, user-centred design, and collaborative language directly enable collective agency and distributed innovation [13,32].

By contrast, Enel Innovation Hub and InnoCentive exhibit communication strategies that are selective and performance-oriented, shaping participation around expertise, market readiness, and technical problem-solving. These approaches are highly effective in mobilising specific innovation outputs but may limit the diversity of contributors and exclude actors not aligned with the platforms’ strategic focus or technical vocabulary.

Thus, while all platforms support innovation, only some foster inclusive, sustainable collective action. Platform communication plays a mediating role between structure and agency, enabling or constraining participation through the discursive framing of opportunities.

Digital platforms are increasingly functioning as cultural intermediaries—entities that interpret, curate, and broadcast meanings about what sustainability is and how it should be pursued [35,38]. This role is particularly evident in OpenIDEO’s storytelling, which reframes global sustainability challenges as design problems that can be solved through collective creativity and innovation. In this model, sustainability is a shared cultural project, not just a technical or economic outcome.

Conversely, platforms like Enel and InnoCentive position sustainability within a technocratic logic, presenting it as an engineering or efficiency challenge. This framing may alienate broader publics and limit cultural ownership of sustainability goals [30].

Therefore, platform designers and content strategists must recognise their role in shaping cultural understandings of sustainability, not only by what they enable, but by how they speak. Language choices, partnerships, imagery, and value statements define the terms of engagement, either expanding or narrowing the collective imagination.

5.2. Implications for Stakeholder Groups

The study emphasises the importance of aligning platform architecture with communication strategy. Co-creative platforms like OpenIDEO benefit from low-barrier entry points, iterative feedback loops, and narrative-rich environments that support community building and knowledge sharing. Designers should prioritise

• Transparent submission and review processes
• Mechanisms for peer interaction and learning
• Accessible, emotionally engaging language

Marketing strategies must go beyond broadcasting calls to action—they must cultivate a sense of purpose and belonging. Intrinsic motivators are more effective in civic platforms, whereas extrinsic motivators are more effective in performance-based settings. Marketers should consider

• Framing sustainability as a shared value proposition
• Using storytelling to humanise innovation outcomes
• Leveraging partnerships to build trust and legitimacy

Policymakers supporting innovation ecosystems should promote platforms that enhance inclusive participation and public value creation. This includes

• Funding platforms that align with the SDGs and open innovation principles
• Encouraging ethical guidelines for crowdsourcing and platform governance
• Recognising platforms as intermediaries in national and regional sustainability strategies

These actors collectively shape how digital infrastructure contributes to the mobilisation of collective intelligence for sustainable development.

5.3. Do the Observed Strategies Promote Sustainable Collective Action?

The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) provide a globally recognised framework for addressing interconnected social, environmental, and economic challenges (UN, 2015). Digital crowdsourcing platforms are particularly well-positioned to advance SDGs by mobilising diverse stakeholders, fostering innovation ecosystems, and scaling solutions across contexts [11,13]. Platforms like OpenIDEO explicitly align their challenges with specific SDGs, such as health, education, and climate action, thereby strengthening legitimacy and mobilising participation around shared global priorities. Corporate innovation hubs, such as Enel’s, strategically frame their activities within SDG 7 (Affordable and Clean Energy) and SDG 13 (Climate Action), reinforcing their role in sustainable energy transitions. Even challenge-based platforms like InnoCentive indirectly contribute to SDGs by channelling technical expertise toward problem-solving in areas such as clean water (SDG 6) or responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). However, alignment with the SDGs is not uniform across platforms, and in some cases risks becoming symbolic rather than substantive. This underscores the importance of communicative strategies that transparently link innovation outcomes with measurable contributions to the SDGs, enabling platforms to act as credible intermediaries in sustainability transitions.

Only OpenIDEO demonstrates a communication model that robustly supports sustainable collective action, using participatory storytelling, SDG alignment, and transparent feedback mechanisms. Its design allows for a distributed problem-solving process, empowering individuals and communities.

In contrast, Enel Innovation Hub and InnoCentive promote innovation, but in ways that are instrumentally focused on outcomes and efficiency. These platforms emphasise quality control, scalability, and return on investment—attributes aligned with private value creation, but less with inclusive co-creation.

Here, Social Exchange Theory is especially illuminating: OpenIDEO builds social reciprocity and cultural ownership of sustainability, while Enel and InnoCentive risk reducing engagement to instrumental exchange. This suggests that communication strategies that explicitly link participation to SDGs and collective benefits are more likely to promote sustainable collective action. Therefore, the study concludes that not all platform-based innovation models promote sustainable collective action. Only those that intentionally design for participation, trust, and cultural legitimacy appear to do so.

5.4. Enterprise Platforms vs. Social Platforms: Structural Divergences

The results also highlight critical differences between enterprise-driven platforms and social/civic platforms (

Table 4. Differences between enterprise-driven platforms and social/civic platforms.

Dimension	Enterprise Platforms (Enel, InnoCentive)	Social Platforms (OpenIDEO)
Innovation Logic	Technical, economic, efficiency-focused	Human-centred, equity-driven
Participation Structure	Selective, merit-based, expert-oriented	Inclusive, open-access, co-creative
Communication Style	Formal, data-driven, strategic	Emotional, narrative, participatory
Value Proposition	Market scalability, investment readiness	Collective impact, SDG alignment
Outcomes Favoured	Technological infrastructure innovation	Social innovation, systemic change

):

Enterprise platforms (Enel, InnoCentive) are more effective at deploying capital-intensive solutions and scaling technical innovation, but their selective participation and transactional communication limit inclusiveness. Social platforms (OpenIDEO), by contrast, prioritise equity, co-creation, and cultural legitimacy, positioning sustainability as a shared human project rather than a technocratic challenge.

These divergences underscore that platform design is not neutral; it reflects and reproduces broader organisational values and objectives. Enterprise platforms may be more effective at deploying capital-intensive solutions, while social platforms excel in building coalitions for long-term cultural change.

5.5. Toward a Theory of Platform-Mediated Sustainability Communication

Taken together, the findings suggest that digital platforms are not just tools for innovation, they are symbolic and organisational systems that shape the narratives, values, and actors involved in sustainability transitions. By integrating Motivation Crowding Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transaction Cost Theory with open innovation, platform studies, and sustainability communication, this study contributes to a theoretical account of platform-mediated sustainability communication. Future theory-building should explore:

• How communication design interacts with platform governance
• The co-evolution of participatory architectures and sustainability imaginaries
• Ethical tensions in balancing inclusiveness, quality control, and platform efficiency

By treating platforms as mediators, rather than neutral facilitators, we open new pathways for understanding how digital infrastructures contribute to transformative sustainability agendas.

The flow diagram (Figure 3) illustrates the causal pathway linking platform communication strategies, participation structures, and sustainability outcomes. Platform communication, through language, tone, motivational framing, and legitimacy signals, shapes the participation architecture, defining who engages, under what incentives, and to what extent. In turn, the nature of participation directly conditions the sustainability outcomes achieved.

For example, inclusive and emotionally resonant communication (as in OpenIDEO) fosters broad, co-creative participation, resulting in outcomes aligned with social innovation and the SDGs. By contrast, technical or reward-driven communication (as seen in Enel Innovation Hub and InnoCentive) encourages selective, expert-oriented participation, resulting in targeted but narrower innovation outputs.

The diagram highlights that communication is not a neutral layer of information delivery but a performative governance tool: it actively constructs the conditions for participation. It thus determines whether innovation outcomes contribute to systemic sustainability transitions or remain limited to technical efficiency gains.

It is important to note that the framework advanced here should not be read as a linear input–output chain. In practice, platform-mediated communication and participation are iterative, negotiated, and mediated by actors with diverse interests and power positions. Sensemaking processes evolve dynamically, and sensegiving strategies are continuously adjusted in response to community feedback, legitimacy challenges, or shifting sustainability priorities. By framing the models presented in Figure 2 and Figure 3 as heuristic pathways rather than deterministic sequences, this study acknowledges the inherent complexity of sustainability communication on digital platforms.

In this light, the novelty of the integrative framework lies in bridging cognitive perspectives on sensemaking with concrete mechanism-based explanations. Whereas sensemaking highlights how collective mental models and visions are constructed, the integration of Motivation Crowding Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transaction Cost Theory unpacks how specific design choices in communication and governance enable—or constrain—participation and sustainability outcomes. This combination provides new theoretical traction for understanding how digital platforms can mobilise collective intelligence not only symbolically but also through operational mechanisms that balance inclusiveness, trust, and efficiency.

6. Conclusions

This study examined how digital crowdsourcing platforms communicate sustainability-oriented innovation and mobilise stakeholder participation through their platform design and messaging strategies. By conducting a directed content analysis of OpenIDEO, Enel Innovation Hub, and InnoCentive, the research identified significant differences in how these platforms frame sustainability, motivate engagement, and support collective innovation.

The results strongly suggest that communication is a critical enabler of sustainable innovation, not merely transmitting information but actively shaping who participates, how problems are defined, and what solutions are considered viable. While all three platforms support forms of open innovation, only OpenIDEO fosters a participatory, emotionally engaging, and SDG-aligned communication model that enables sustainable collective action. In contrast, Enel Innovation Hub and InnoCentive focus on technical expertise, economic incentives, and strategic value creation, which, although effective in specific contexts, risk narrowing participation and reinforcing transactional logics.

By situating the analysis within Motivation Crowding Theory, Social Exchange Theory, and Transaction Cost Theory, this study offers a mid-range theoretical lens for understanding platform-mediated sustainability communication. OpenIDEO demonstrates how intrinsic motivation and reciprocity can be cultivated through inclusive narratives and transparent feedback, while Enel and InnoCentive illustrate how transaction-cost minimisation and extrinsic reward structures may achieve efficiency at the expense of inclusiveness. These findings advance theory by demonstrating how communicative framing mediates the relationship between platform architecture, user engagement, and sustainability outcomes.

This research contributes to the emerging body of knowledge on platform-mediated sustainability innovation by underscoring the importance of discursive framing, motivational design, and legitimacy signals in shaping platform outcomes and their alignment with the SDGs. For platform designers, the findings suggest that communication strategies should be intentionally crafted to expand inclusiveness, build trust, and explicitly link innovation challenges to global sustainability agendas. For policymakers, the results highlight the role of platforms as cultural intermediaries in sustainability transitions and the need for ethical guidelines to ensure equitable participation.

Several limitations should be acknowledged. First, the analysis focused exclusively on externally visible communication, such as website content and public messaging. It did not assess user-generated content, internal decision-making processes, or platform analytics. Future research could integrate interviews, participant observation, or usage data to triangulate findings and capture deeper layers of engagement. Second, the study analysed only three platforms, which were selected purposefully to represent distinct innovation logics. While the findings are theoretically transferable, they are not statistically generalizable across all crowdsourcing platforms. Third, this research did not evaluate the actual sustainability outcomes of the innovations generated through the platforms. A longitudinal, impact-focused study could examine how different communication models influence not only participation but also the quality, implementation, and long-term effects of the innovations themselves. Finally, the qualitative focus of this study limits the extent to which the findings can be generalised across all digital platforms. Although content triangulation enhances validity, the study did not employ complementary quantitative methods such as large-scale data mining, statistical text analysis, or participant surveys. Future research could address this limitation by combining qualitative content analysis with survey-based validation or computational methods, thereby providing more robust and generalisable evidence of how communication strategies shape sustainability outcomes. Also, this study has several limitations that affect its reproducibility and temporal validity. OpenIDEO and Enel Innovation Hub exhibit reduced accessibility compared to their original states. The OpenIDEO platform no longer hosts active challenges, and startup.enel.com is currently unavailable. Although related or archived materials remain online, some pages used (July 2024–June 2025) data collection is not independently verifiable through public archives. Incomplete web archiving constrains external verification. Despite extensive retrieval attempts through the Wayback Machine and other archival tools, certain challenge pages or interactive components were not captured—possibly due to site exclusions, content removal, or dynamic page formats. The temporal variation between data collection (2023–2024) and verification (October 2025) introduces potential discrepancies in platform functionality and presentation. While this does not undermine the validity of the analysed data, it highlights the ephemeral nature of digital innovation platforms. It underscores the necessity of systematic archiving for reproducible web-based research.

Building on the findings, several pathways for future inquiry are proposed: future studies could explore how different user groups (e.g., students, SMEs, activists, experts) experience and interpret platform communication, and how this influences their motivation, trust, and the quality of their contributions. A broader sample of platforms from Global South and Global North contexts, or across specific sectors (e.g., climate tech, public health, agriculture), would enrich the understanding of how cultural and institutional contexts mediate platform communication and sustainability framing.Incorporating visual discourse analysis or participatory action research can deepen insights into how language, imagery, and interface design affect perceptions of legitimacy, inclusivity, and impact. Given the rising concerns about platform capitalism, future research should address the ethical dimensions of participation, including data use, intellectual property, and equity in innovation outcomes, and there is scope to develop a more robust theory of platform-mediated sustainability communication, integrating insights from innovation studies, discourse theory, and the literature on sustainability transitions.

Ultimately, as the world confronts interconnected sustainability crises, digital platforms will play a growing role in shaping how society defines, communicates, and addresses its most pressing challenges. Understanding the communicative architecture of these platforms is not just a scholarly task, it is a necessary step toward building more inclusive, equitable, and resilient innovation ecosystems.