Open innovation has increasingly been recognised as a critical driver of organisational performance, enabling firms to access external knowledge, share risks, and leverage complementary resources. At the same time, increasing thought has been devoted to the role that open innovation may play in advancing sustainability, particularly in response to the pressing environmental and societal grand challenges we are currently facing. Given the relevance of this topic, this editorial presents a comprehensive examination of how the joint consideration of open innovation and sustainability can lead to superior organisational performance and benefit society as a whole. After the description of the current state of knowledge, categorized into four main research streams, the manuscript summarizes the main findings of the papers published in this issue. The eight articles explore this intersection between open innovation and sustainability through a variety of theoretical approaches and methodological designs, highlighting both the opportunities and challenges of leveraging open innovation for environmental, social, and economic sustainability, while underscoring the contingent nature of such benefits. We conclude this editorial by outlining future research directions worth investigating regarding open innovation and sustainability. Overall, we contribute to the debate regarding open innovation and sustainability in the digital age by offering an integrated, empirically grounded view of how openness contributes to the creation of environmental, social, and economic value.

The transportation sector is undergoing a significant shift towards electrification, driven by sustainability challenges and battery electric vehicle (BEV) technology advancements. This transition also leads to a convergence of transport and energy industries, introducing new dynamics and creating new business opportunities in these sectors. Such changes have extensive implications not only for single firms but for entire ecosystems as these adapt to new technologies, activities, and business models. This study introduces the concept of Industry-Converging Ecosystems, where traditional industrial boundaries become less distinct, requiring collaboration among unfamiliar participants across various industries. This paper investigates the tensions between value creation and value capture and control in such ecosystems through a case study of an innovative electric charging system for buses in V & auml;ster & aring;s, Sweden. The findings advance ecosystem research by (1) introducing the industry-converging ecosystem concept, (2) revealing two sources for business model tensions stemming from monetisation uncertainties and resource competition, and (3) demonstrating the lack of clarity in ecosystem control caused by limited influence over business models and diminished legitimacy due to their newness.

Despite substantial contextual differences between the West and China, systems approaches have been recognized as essential for addressing complex and dynamic management challenges, particularly within the field of innovation. However, most previous studies are rooted in traditional cybernetics within the framework of first-order science, which is characterized by linear processes and stable elements. To tackle complex and dynamic challenges in innovation management, a shift of systems approaches towards second-order science is required in both the Western and Chinese contexts. This shift would pave the way for new research areas and potentially new disciplines, where complexity and dynamics are embraced rather than avoided. In the Western context, a related topic is system of systems (SoS), whereas in China, the corresponding Chinese term is TiXi. Given that second-order science has the potential to foster novelty and innovation, this study aims to explore the systems approach to innovation management through the lens of second-order science in both the West and China, with a particular focus on SoS and TiXi, and address three important questions: (1) What are the key common and different attributes of SoS in the West and TiXi in China? (2) What are the paradigms of innovation management in the West and China that reflect the attributes of the SoS and TiXi? (3) What are the theoretical implications of SoS and TiXi for future research on innovation management?

PurposeDigital innovation ecosystems (DIEs) are networks of interconnected stakeholders and organizations that collaborate without a rigid hierarchy to generate and develop new ideas, products and services supported by digital technologies (DTs). Although DIEs have become embedded in the daily operations of businesses, few studies explore them from a startup's perspective. To this end, our study analyses an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven, on-demand short film streaming platform called WeShort, founded in Italy in 2020, which successfully created and orchestrated a DIE.Design/methodology/approachA case study methodology was employed. Data were collected and analysed from both primary and secondary sources, including interviews with the CEO and CTO of WeShort, meetings and archival documents, conducted between December 2023 and June 2024. These data provide insights into the DIE of the WeShort startup and its role as an orchestrator.FindingsThe findings describe the WeShort digital startup ecosystem, comprising key actors (such as filmmakers, technology providers, distributors and customers), essential resources or artifacts (including a multi-sided platform, digital technologies and a film library) and core activities (such as investment in technologies, collaboration between producers and distributors and the adoption of user engagement strategies). Open innovation practices are leveraged to enhance collaboration as well as the transfer of knowledge and technologies. Digital tools like AI, big data analytics, streaming platforms and blockchain are employed to create value.Research limitations/implicationsThis study contributes to the academic and managerial discourse on DIEs by emphasizing the importance of strategic alliances, investment in advanced technologies and adaptability to shifting market conditions.Originality/valueThe study aims to understand the core mechanisms that drive innovation, influence stakeholder interactions and shape the evolution of DIEs, ultimately demonstrating that even a startup can successfully orchestrate such an ecosystem.

Complexity and innovation are emerging as fundamental issues for the future of human life and society. To deal with them, different versions of systems thinking have been proposed. However, System-of-Systems (SoS) thinking, based on the biperspectival principle and human reflexivity, has not yet been clearly recognized. The unclear distinction between ‘systems’ and ‘SoS’ thinking often results in confusion and misapplication of related concepts within the closed cycle of ‘system ↔ system-of-systems ↔ complex system ↔ system’, implying a need to address a set of inter-related questions: (1) What is the trajectory of systems thinking embracing complexity and innovation? (2) How does such a trajectory of systems thinking shape the future systems thinking in terms of SoS? and (3) What is SoS thinking? To address these questions, this article aims to explore the future of systems thinking in terms of SoS by embracing complexity and innovation, and delve into the theoretical origins of SoS theory, as well as its scientific connotation and logical framework. Firstly, the trajectory of systems thinking is outlined based on varying degrees of complexity across the dimensions known–unknown whole, and fixed–flexible relationships, respectively. Thereafter, the evolution path toward SoS thinking is analysed. Finally, the scientific connotation and logical framework of SoS thinking including (1) reshaping of boundaries, (2) governance of relationships, and (3) self-reflexivity and innovation, are explained based on the co-existence of paradoxes. The research results shed new light on the development of systems thinking in terms of SoS for complexity and innovation, by expanding the theories that integrate systems and complexity perspectives. Moreover, they provide practical guidance for applying SoS thinking based on the biperspectival principle and human reflexivity, along with a logical framework for engaging complexity and innovation at multiple levels of SoS.

This study explores how the use of a standard-based Innovation Management System approach influences the legitimacy for innovation management—a management discipline often subject to innovation fads and fashions. Utilizing neo institutional theory as a lens, we explore how this approach increased legitimacy for innovation management in case studies of two large organizations, and how this in turn affected innovation activities. Theoretically, we contribute by adding construct clarity to the concept of legitimacy, in relation to management systems, and by increasing understanding of the role of legitimacy in innovation activities. Managerial implications include the potential use of an Innovation Management Systems Standard to create a common language for innovation, to systematize innovation efforts and improve the perceived seriosity of innovation management, which in turn enables more robust and continuous innovation efforts in organizations.

Transitions of transport systems are necessary to meet climate targets and reach sustainable development goals. Sustainable transport needs to be equitable, efficient, safe, and green. Transport systems need to become less resource-intensive, whereby sharing and utilising resources more efficiently can be a route forward. However, for well-functioning sharing, the involved stakeholders need to collaborate. Thus, sharing resources can mean sharing material and physical resources, such as vehicles and places, but it can also mean sharing immaterial and intangible resources, such as time and responsibilities. Through an interview study exploring shared resources in goods deliveries at off-peak hours in Stockholm-based trials, opportunities for organising transport system innovations have been investigated. Interviews were carried out with thirteen respondents involved in, or related to, off-peak logistics, and trigger materials were used to deepen the conversation when discussing the logistics service systems. Off-peak trials can be seen as innovation processes affected by several conditions. Innovation processes are collaborative, and collaborative innovation involves decision-making coordination across organisational boundaries. The concepts of sensemaking and sensegiving are used to analyse the studied collaborative innovation processes. However, stakeholders engaged in innovating sustainable transport systems must find new ways to collaborate, as ambiguity and uncertainty are more extensive than in their day-to-day business development or the incremental development of new services. This study shows that conditions for such collaborative innovation processes vary between different types of collaborative settings, as innovation depends on the transformative capacity to alter types of stakeholder agreements and roles and agree on how to share resources and design such sharing. Designing for resource sharing requires understanding how to design tangible and intangible buffers, and for the involved stakeholders to make sense of such new designs.

Overview: Organizations can implement an innovation management system in order to address the multidimensional challenges they often have in their practical innovation work. Until the ISO 56002 standard was released in 2019, there was no international standard for the design of innovation management systems. The standard provides support as a framework and highlights important systems elements. We studied two early adopters that have used this international standard to design their innovation management systems. Based on the study findings, we devised a practical approach for framing the design of an innovation management system. The approach includes a set of steps and critical considerations that include understanding a company’s innovation ambitions and direction, analyzing the systemic dimensions of the system (the elements and how they interconnect), and introducing a balanced set of control mechanisms.