Davide Cagnoli 

 

SUSTAINABLE OPEN INNOVATION BETWEEN 
LARGE COMPANIES AND STARTUPS 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Vaasa 2024 

School of Management 

 

MSc in International 

Business 

  



2 

UNIVERSITY OF VAASA 
School of Management 

Author: Davide Cagnoli 
Title of the thesis:  SUSTAINABLE OPEN INNOVATION BETWEEN LARGE COMPANIES 

AND STARTUPS [Subject] 
Degree: Master’s Degree in International Business 
Discipline: International Business  
Supervisor: Tiina Leposky  
Year: 2024 Pages: 105  

 
 
ABSTRACT : In the contemporary business landscape, the complexity and seriousness of the 
global issues faced by our society have reached a turning point. Strong multilateral initiatives 
are needed in order to address the Grand Challenges of our times. Sustainable Open Innovation, 
characterised by collaborative practices between different partners, driven by sustainability, 
and transcending the firm’s innovation boundaries, can represent an extremely valuable asset 
to solve these challenges. 
 
This thesis investigates the dynamics of Sustainable Open Innovation between large companies 
and startups, aiming to elucidate the collaborative process, highlighting the main reasons behind 
the adoption of Open Innovation mechanisms, as well as presenting the main benefits, 
challenges and opportunities inherent in such a remarkable innovation approach. Grounded in 
a multidisciplinary theoretical framework encompassing innovation management, open 
innovation, sustainability, and finally the interrelation between open innovation and 
sustainability, this qualitative study employs a mixed-methods approach, through both an 
inductive and deductive reasoning, and combining semi-structured interviews and secondary 
data to shed light on the subject matter. The objective of this research is to provide theoretical 
and practical implication to the recent topic of Sustainable Open Innovation, with a specific focus 
on effective OI collaborations between large companies and startups. 
 
The findings contribute to both theory and practice by advancing our understanding of how large 
companies and startups can collaborate to foster innovation that is not only profitable and 
economically viable for both partners, but also socially and environmentally responsible. The 
results are summarised by taking into account the key research questions addressed in this 
study, aiming at providing insights on the discussed topic. In the end, this study provides 
practical recommendations for managers and entrepreneurs seeking to leverage Open 
Innovation for sustainable development goals. 
 
 
 

KEYWORDS: Innovation, Open Innovation, Sustainability, Sustainable Open Innovation, 
Startups, Large companies 

  



3 

TABLE OF CONTENT 

 

1 INTRODUCTION 5 

1.1 Background of the study 5 

1.2 Research questions and objectives 8 

1.3 Research Gaps 10 

1.4 Delimitations of the study 12 

1.5 Main concepts and definitions 13 

1.6 Structure of the study 15 

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 17 

2.1 Open Innovation 17 

2.1.1 The critical role of innovation 18 

2.1.2 Closed and Open Innovation 20 

2.2 Startups 26 

2.2.1 Startups in the Open Innovation context 29 

2.3 Open Innovation between large established companies and startups: Why 

should David and Goliath synergize and cooperate? 31 

2.4 Sustainability: a broad concept 36 

2.5 Sustainable Open Innovation 39 

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 44 

3.1 Research philosophy 44 

3.2 Research design 46 

3.3 Data Collection 49 

3.4 Data Analysis 52 

4 KEY FINDINGS AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION 54 

4.1 Presentation of the case studies 54 

4.1.1 Snam 56 

4.1.2 Italgas 58 

4.1.3 Limenet 60 

4.1.4 Oraigo 61 



4 

4.2 Factors and motivations to implement Open Innovation 65 

4.2.1 Snam and Italgas 65 

4.2.2 Limenet and Oraigo 71 

4.2.3 Summary of findings 74 

4.3 Benefits and Challenges of an Open Innovation approach between large 

companies and startups 76 

4.3.1 Snam and Italgas 77 

4.3.2 Limenet and Oraigo 81 

4.3.3 Summary of findings 84 

5 FINAL THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND CONCLUSIONS 87 

5.1.1 Results 87 

5.1.2 Future Research Opportunities 92 

5.1.3 Managerial Contributions 94 

LIST OF REFERENCES 96 

LIST OF FIGURES 106 

LIST OF TABLES 107 

 

 
 
 
 
 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

  



5 

1 INTRODUCTION 

 

The first chapter of this master’s thesis includes an overview of the study with its 

practical and theoretical implications. First, the background of the study will be 

presented. Secondly, the research questions, the main objectives, as well as the research 

gaps,  will be outlined, along with the delimitations of the study. Finally, the main 

concepts and definitions will be mentioned. 

 

 

1.1 Background of the study 

In these extraordinary hard times, the complexity and seriousness of the global issues 

faced by our society have reached a turning point: global pandemics, wars, famine, 

climate change, biodiversity, only to name a few, represent serious and complex issues 

which impact our everyday existence and will probably continue to affect future 

generations, unless an immediate collective action is taken by all members of society. 

 

In a popular article titled “Tackling Grand Challenges Pragmatically”, Ferraro et al. (2015) 

firstly coined the word Grand Challenges, by referring to the major critical issues faced 

by humanity nowadays, with significant global implications. In that study, the authors 

called for a pragmatic multilateral and coordinated approach to address these 

challenges. In fact, such Grand Challenges are characterized by an increased degree of 

complexity and uncertainty, especially those related to the transition to sustainable 

development. As a result, the same great challenges demand that businesses, public 

institutions, and the whole society start to significantly increase the level of collaboration 

in order to implement innovative, sustainable solutions and drive the transition to 

sustainable development. Fostering collaboration among experts from different fields, 

bringing together professionals with diverse perspectives, as well as involving and 

engaging all the relevant stakeholders, can lead to a more comprehensive and effective 

solutions, rather than acting independently (Dahlander and Wallin, 2020). In 2015, the 



6 

United Nations created the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, and its 17 

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) represent an urgent call for action by all 

countries to cooperate in order to solve the world’s biggest problems (United Nations, 

2024).  Addressing the issue of climate change, in particular, appears to be paramount 

for the transition to sustainable development. The traditional linear “take-make-dispose” 

economic model is no longer sustainable in the long term, and it’s reaching its physical 

limitations (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). Companies in various industries have a 

great impact on the environment: continuous extraction and use of finite resources and 

waste production affect the environmental and social sustainability, causing big impacts 

on biodiversity, CO2 and GHG emissions, and to a broader extent, contributing to climate 

change (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013). The new “sustainable” paradigm, which is 

so strongly advocated by numerous international organizations, government bodies and 

policy makers, as well as society in its broadest sense, requires a structural change of 

perspective, through a multilateral effort involving both individuals, companies, 

industries, institutions and countries, by implementing radical shifts in societal values, 

norms, and behaviours (Chizaryfard et al., 2020).  

  

In this paper, I argue that multilateral collaboration for innovation is paramount for 

advancing the transition to sustainable development, thanks to a more effective and 

rapid implementation of innovative, sustainable solutions. In particular, collaborations 

between large, established companies and early startups, through the systematic use of 

Open Innovation, can be extremely beneficial for that purpose. Open innovation (OI), 

originally, refers to the “use of purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge to 

accelerate internal innovation” (Chesbrough, 2003). Later the concept has evolved to 

refer to a higher degree of collaboration between several stakeholders, and the range of 

applications is quite broad and can fulfil diverse purposes. I argue that OI between large 

companies and startups is crucial for implementing innovative, sustainable solutions due 

to its ability to foster collaboration, leverage diverse perspectives, putting together 

complementary resources, and addressing each part’s necessities and objectives in a 

more effective way. Sustainable development, in fact, requires rapid and transformative 



7 

innovations to address urgent environmental, social, and economic issues. With this 

regard, OI can be functional in speeding up the development and implementation of 

sustainable solutions, by allowing a collaborative environment with the sharing of 

knowledge, technologies, and resources. Such a collaborative innovation model 

recognizes that both large companies and startups have unique strengths, resources, and 

capabilities that can be mutually beneficial (Chesbrough, 2003). 

 

Overall, OI plays a pivotal role in fostering a collective and dynamic approach to tackle 

the complex challenges associated with sustainable development. Opening up the 

innovation processes can facilitate and accelerate the implementation of sustainable 

solutions, with positive benefits for all the partners involved. However, OI is still poorly 

embraced by companies, and there is a limited, yet successful, amount of case studies 

which show the tangible benefits of such a different approach to innovation. Moreover, 

when the new approach is in place, it is not exactly clear why both parties decide to 

collaborate and synergize (Dahlander and Wallin, 2020). The quest for the reasons 

behind the adoption OI models in both large companies and startups, as well as the 

presentation of the benefits as well as challenges of this innovative approach, can 

represent a significant case study for speeding up the adoption of the OI practice among 

different organisations. 

 

In conclusion, the Grand Challenges presented by serious issues such as climate change 

and the growing concern of international organizations towards sustainability demand a 

strong paradigm shift in the domain of innovation management, through a more 

effective collaboration between different stakeholders under the larger domain of OI. 

With this regard, OI initiatives between large companies and innovative startups can 

result in a more effective implementation of groundbreaking innovations, and fostering 

the creation of new value.  

 

  



8 

1.2 Research questions and objectives 

The importance of Open Innovation for a more effective implementation of creative, 

sustainable solutions is now being recognized by several companies, institutions, and 

governments. However, many companies still struggle to understand the benefits of 

opening up their innovation models, by using a more collaborative approach to 

innovation, in order to leverage potentially beneficial partnerships with innovative 

organisations, leading to the implementation of sustainable solutions. Understanding 

the dynamics of SOI, and the core factors and motivations to pursue a SOI approach, can 

be beneficial for bringing up a larger “case for Open Innovation” and eventually speeding 

up the OI processes driven by sustainability- 

  

In this study, the following research questions will be addressed:  

 

1. Why do large established companies and startups collaborate through a 

Sustainable Open Innovation approach? 

 

2. Which are the main benefits, as well as the barriers and challenges of an 

effective implementation of Open Innovation between large companies and 

startups? 

 

In summary, the core focus of the research is to investigate the main factors for 

implementing Open Innovation for sustainable development, or Sustainable Open 

Innovation, which involves different kind of collaborations between large established 

companies and early startups, with an in-depth analysis of the key success factors as well 

as the main challenges and barriers faced by both players in implementing SOI. The 

answers to the previous research questions will contribute to the existing, non-abundant, 

literature on the topic of Sustainable Open Innovation.  

 

Regarding the objectives of this study, the author aims, in general terms, to investigate 

the dynamics of SOI within both large companies and startups. Firstly, by analysing the 



9 

reasons behind the choice of collaborating through a general OI paradigm, and secondly 

by evaluating the positive factors and benefits, as well as challenges and issues of SOI 

collaborations between large companies and startups. 

 

Therefore, this thesis presents two main purposes. Firstly, to investigate the key drivers 

of the decision of implementing SOI internally, by analysing the company’s motivation to 

pursue SOI as a new strategic approach to innovation driven by sustainability. Specifically, 

the focus will be on the reasons behind the partnerships between large, established 

companies and startups. The second main objective is to analyse the benefits as well as 

the challenges for an effective collaboration between large established companies and 

startups. It is therefore interesting to explore the multifaceted relationship between 

these two stakeholders which, apparently, couldn’t be more different from each other 

in terms of size of the business, agility, business models and resources available. 

 

The objectives supporting the RQs are divided into theoretical and empirical objectives. 

The study has the following theoretical objectives:  

 

1. To analyse the existing literature related to Open Innovation, the role of Open 

Innovation in fostering sustainable development, and the key features of Open 

Innovation from the perspectives of both large companies and startups. 

2. To analyse the existing literature related to sustainability, with its most relevant 

aspects as well as issues to consider, in order to understand its role in shaping 

innovation- 

3. To analyse the current literature on the interaction between the two themes of 

Open Innovation and sustainable development, hence investigating the recent 

concept of Sustainable Open Innovation which has not extensively examined in 

the literature. 

  

 

 



10 

Furthermore, the study presents the following empirical objectives: 

 

1. To analyse the core motivations for implementing Open Innovation in both large 

established companies and early startups, with real case studies to serve as a 

concrete example.  

2. To analyse critical elements and success factors, as well as the potential 

challenges for effective collaborations between large companies and startups, 

under the domain of Open Innovation. 

 

The practical contribution of this study aims at building up a case study for SOI, by 

summarizing the key positive elements of SOI as a method that can provide multiple 

benefits for both large companies and startups. The main idea is that such a collaborative 

approach to innovation can lead to the implementation of innovative, sustainable 

solutions in a quicker and more effective way, which in turn can provide a larger impact 

on society and the environment. 

 

Finally, by following these objectives, and after analysing the current literature on the 

presented topics, a theoretical framework will be created in order to understand the role 

of OI for the adoption of sustainable solutions. However, given that the study is in large 

extent exploratory, with the aim of building new insights and results in a lacking theory 

on the topic, the theoretical framework will only be presented at the end of the findings 

section. The empirical objectives will be achieved through collection of primary and 

secondary data, coupled with the execution of a qualitative analysis through the 

application of a mixed approach, with elements of deductive and inductive reasoning. 

 

 

1.3 Research Gaps 

Both the concepts of Open Innovation and Sustainable Development are not completely 

unknown in the literature. Quite the contrary, if taken from a singular perspective, they 

are both well-established fields of research, especially regarding Open Innovation. Both 



11 

theories are quite relevant in the actual business environment, as the call for multilateral 

collaboration has been growing in popularity in these past decades (Dahlander and 

Wallin, 2020). 

 

In recent years, sustainability has become a popular concept promoted by the EU and 

many organisations worldwide. However, there is still little and vague scientific research 

on the intersection between OI and sustainability. Despite the potential and large 

emphasis, over the years, of the OI concept, little is known about the interaction and 

integration of the two themes. Specifically, the concept of Sustainable Open Innovation 

is not widely discussed in the literature (Bogers et al., 2020). 

 

Furthermore, within the research area of OI, there is still a relatively unexplored field, 

and studies examining collaborative innovation between startups and large companies, 

particularly from the perspective of startups, are still almost non-existent (Usman, 

Vanhaverbke, 2017). The investigation of the dynamics of the collaborations between 

large companies and startups can provide interesting insights in this field of research. In 

addition to this, there is not a broad literature on the motivations and factors behind the 

adoption of OI practices between large, structured companies and startups. 

 

In the broad area of innovation management, so far research has focused predominantly 

on competencies and capabilities of single firms to achieve competitive advantage 

through application of sustainability principles. Yet, little attention has been paid to 

understanding the role of cross-sectoral collaboration, through OI, for advancing 

sustainable development. In fact, as mentioned before, although the concepts of OI and 

sustainability have been raising in popularity in the literature, there is a gap in research 

regarding their combination, and specifically regarding OI between large companies and 

startups in the context of Sustainable Open Innovation (Bogers et al., 2020). 

 

In summary, a potential research gap exists in the literature, in particular regarding the 

topic of Sustainable Open Innovation, specifically between large companies and startups, 



12 

which is the focus of this study. An investigation into such topics can also serve as a guide 

to practitioners and non practitioners in order to evaluate the role and importance of OI 

for implementing sustainable solutions. 

 

 

1.4 Delimitations of the study 

Several delimitations have been identified in this study, starting with the identification 

of the research problem, the research question, and the objectives. In fact, this study’s 

context has been restricted to align with its defined scope. For instance, the focus on OI 

for sustainability, or Sustainable Open Innovation, is determined by the significant nature 

of the topic, as well as for its actual importance in today’s global scenario, as outlined in 

the introduction section. 

 

Starting with the theoretical framework, an important delimitation can be found within 

the structure followed by the author. As the purpose of the study is to analyse the key 

drivers and the main aspects of OI between large companies and startups, a 

comprehensive structure was created to best serve this objective. Starting with the role 

of OI and its evolution, both in large companies and startups, it then became appropriate 

to study the dynamics of OI between large companies and startups, therefore deep 

diving into the core of the research. Finally, the topic of SOI is presented in light of the 

interrelation between OI and sustainability. Given the little evidence on the topic of SOI, 

the author needed to focus more on the key dynamics of OI, with more emphasis on the 

OI dynamics between large companies and startups, while only at the end presenting 

the relatively new concept of SOI with a real case example presented in the literature. 

 

In addition, a strong delimitation can be found in the limited geographical application of 

the presented case studies, as only Italian companies were selected and analysed for the 

purpose of this study. The results could not be generalised as each market has unique 

characteristics that may impact the motivations to pursue OI approaches, like for 

instance the characteristics of the environment in which organisations operate, external 



13 

incentives in pursuing cross-collaborations between different stakeholders, both 

pecuniary and non-pecuniary benefits, and the differences in innovation culture across 

organisations in different markets (Chesbrough et al., 2014). Furthermore, both Italgas 

and Snam, the two large Italian companies selected for the case study, belong to the 

energy sector, where the dynamics of OI can significantly differ from other industries. 

Comparisons of results are therefore limited due to the sectorial application of these 

results. In fact, the energy sector in Italy is frequently in the spotlight due to increased 

external pressures on reducing costs, foster sustainability, and lower public participation. 

The specific situation could therefore represent a limitation in the following 

generalisation of the results. 

 

As for the methodology employed for collecting and analysing empirical data, an 

exploratory approach will be utilized to show the dynamics of Sustainable Open 

Innovation between large companies and startups, with real case studies. The study will 

employ a qualitative method, incorporating various data sources and methods to ensure 

the research's validity, reliability, and credibility. Both primary and secondary data will 

be collected using mainly an inductive approach, with a primary focus on the elaboration 

of  semi-structured interviews within the selected companies. The semi-structured 

format allows for adaptability in framing questions based on the responses of the 

interviewees. The sources of secondary data, including textual and non-textual 

documents, surveys, and datasets, will be utilized to gain a comprehensive 

understanding of the contextual background of the companies presented in the case 

study, and will serve as complementary to the primary data. An important delimitation 

is, therefore, given by the choice of the methods, which is obviously limited to a specific 

research methodology, in this case represented by the exploratory, qualitative study. 

 

 

1.5 Main concepts and definitions 

Establishing a clear understanding of the main concepts and definitions is paramount to 

laying a solid foundation for the study. For this reason, this paragraph presents the core 



14 

concepts incorporated in this study as well as the main definitions in order to facilitate a 

clearer comprehension of the subject matter: 

 

INNOVATION – “a process that an individual or organization undertakes to conceptualize 

brand new products, processes, and ideas, or to approach existing products, processes, 

and ideas in new ways” (Will Purcell, 2019) 

 

OPEN INNOVATION – “a distributed innovation process based on purposively managed 

knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary 

mechanisms in line with each organization’s business model” (Chesbrough et al., 2014) 

 

STARTUPS – “A startup is a temporary organization designed to search for a repeatable 

and scalable business model” (Steve Blank, 2010) 

 

LARGE COMPANY – “company employs more than 250 persons, with a yearly turnover 

that exceeds 50m euro or a total yearly financial statement that exceeds 43m euro” 

(European Commission, 2016). 

 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT –  “development that meets the needs of the present 

without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (UN 

Brundtland Commission, 1987). 

 

SUSTAINABLE OPEN INNOVATION – “a distributed innovation process which is based on 

purposively managed knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using 

pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with the organization’s business model, 

thereby contributing to development that meets the needs of the present without 

compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (Bogers et al., 

2020) 

 

 



15 

 

 

1.6 Structure of the study 

This study is comprised of 5 chapters. 

The first chapter serves as general introduction, offering a contextual background of 

the study by identifying the research gap that the thesis intends to address. It outlines 

the research questions and objectives of the study, as well as the main concepts and 

delimitations presented in the literature review. 

Chapter 2 encompasses a comprehensive review of the literature, divided into different 

sub topics. Starting with the Open Innovation paradigm, its main mechanisms and 

development over the years, the following section deals with the main contributions 

on the startups subject, followed by an investigation of the role of OI within startups. 

Subsequently, the focus is on Open Innovation between large companies and startups. 

Finally, the sub chapters of sustainability and sustainable open innovation are 

presented 

In Chapter 3, the methodology employed for analysing the gathered data will be 

elucidated. Initially, the research design will be outlined, followed by a depiction of the 

data collection process and the considered case study. Subsequently, the investigative 

process will be scrutinized to affirm the study's quality. 

Moving to Chapter 4, this section will conduct an analysis of the empirical results, 

aiming to address the empirical questions and align with the objectives outlined in the 

introductory chapter. The goal is to establish a connection between the previously 

developed theoretical framework and the empirical findings. Additionally, managerial 

implications will be assessed to formulate an empirical framework consistent with the 

discovered outcomes. 

 



16 

Chapter 5 serves as the conclusive chapter wherein the conclusion and summary are 

presented. Alongside this, limitations and suggestions for future studies will be 

delineated. 



17 

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 

 

This chapter provides a detailed investigation of the literature regarding the Open 

Innovation (OI) paradigm and its connection with sustainability. Firstly, the study 

presents a broad overview of the literature regarding the role of innovation for fostering 

companies’ business growth and competitive advantage, followed by an introduction of 

the concept of OI and its evolution over time, presenting the main studies and 

contributions. Subsequentially, the focus of the discussion is on the critical role of OI 

within both large companies and startups as a major contributor to addressing different 

innovation purposes. In particular, the sub chapter regarding startups will cover the role 

of OI in startups, despite poorly analysed in the existing literature, with the purpose of 

showing how OI can represent a decisive driver for overcoming the so-called initial 

liabilities of early startups. The consequent paragraph deals with the role of OI between 

large established companies and startups, the dynamics of the collaborations between 

both parties, along with the presentation of a successful case study.  The second part of 

the literature review entails a discussion around the topic of sustainable development, 

with the presentation of the recent concept of sustainable open innovation (SOI). 

Starting with the topic of sustainable development and its importance for modern 

organizations, the focus will be lead on how OI can be linked with sustainability, and 

specifically how OI can be leveraged by companies for implementing sustainable 

innovation.  

 

 

2.1 Open Innovation 

This literature review starts with the topic of Open Innovation (OI), which emerged in 

the literature in the early 2000s as a new innovation paradigm that challenges the 

conventional innovation models within organisations, by promoting multilateral 

collaboration, sharing of ideas, and co-creation processes beyond the internal 

organisational boundaries (Chesbrough, 2003). This study entails a comprehensive 



18 

exploration of OI, aiming to discover its theoretical underpinnings and implications, as 

well as strategic and practical applications across various organizations. By exploring the 

multifaceted aspects of OI, this study aims to shed light on how organisations can 

leverage external collaboration to drive sustainable growth, adapt to modern fast-

changing environment, and successfully thrive in the contemporary business landscape. 

Before presenting the concept of OI, a synthetic introduction to the role of innovation is 

provided, as an essential enabler to foster a sustained competitive advantage. 

 

 

2.1.1 The critical role of innovation 

Innovation can be defined as a “process that an individual or organization undertakes to 

conceptualize brand new products, processes, and ideas, or to approach existing 

products, processes, and ideas in new ways” (Will Purcell, 2019). Therefore, according to 

the author, innovation in business entails improving existing products or processes, or 

developing new products or processes. In practical terms, companies can pursue 

innovation in existing products and services, by making improvements, or through new 

business models, processes, and functions. 

 

Innovating is critical for multiple reasons: it can allow a significant competitive advantage, 

it is often linked to business growth and efficiency improvement, as well as being a 

source of talent attraction and retention (IMD, 2023). Moreover, unexpected challenges 

are quite inevitable in the business landscape. Embracing innovation can position you 

ahead of the competition and foster the expansion of your company simultaneously, as 

well as allowing a great adaptability to overcome difficulties (Dahlander and Wallin, 

2020). 

 

According to Schumpeter (1942), innovation is fundamental for economic growth and 

business development. By coining the famous term “creative destruction”, Schumpeter 

aimed at explaining how the process of innovation, often driven by disrupting ideas, 

products, and technologies, can lead to a destruction of the existing models and the 



19 

development of more efficient systems. According to the author, the two main principles 

of Creative Destruction are innovation and entrepreneurship, and the combination of 

the two aspects is considered to be critical in order to foster economic growth. Moreover, 

the author suggested that small entrepreneurial firms are sources of most innovations, 

as they are characterized by strong entrepreneurial spirit and willingness to take risks 

which can result in introduction of new ideas, technologies, and even business models. 

 

According to Porter (1987), innovation is a key factor of success for organisations, and 

an effective management of innovation is critical for achieving and maintaining long-

term competitive advantage. Porter also stressed the importance of differentiation 

through innovation, hence where companies aim to offer unique and innovative 

products or services, therefore creating a distinctive value proposition which can set a 

company apart from competition. Moreover, the author recognizes that innovation is 

fundamental for value creation. In fact, companies that innovate effectively can offer 

valuable solutions to meet customer needs far better than competitors. 

 

In a popular article called “You need an Innovation Strategy”, Pisano (2015) stretched 

the importance of having an innovation strategy aligned with the general business 

strategy, in order to perform better in the long term. The author found a link between 

innovation and value creation, and the criticality of pursuing innovation which creates 

value. The author also presented a framework called “The Innovation Landscape Map”, 

which characterizes innovation based on two dimensions: the degree of technical 

changes, and the degree of business model changes. Each dimension of the matrix shows 

different types of innovation based on the two dimensions. 

 



20 

 

Figure 1. The Innovation Landscape Map (Pisano, 2015) 

 

Figure 1 shows the four main innovation strategies, according to The Innovation 

Landscape Map (Pisano, 2015). Routine innovation is the lowest possible degree of 

innovation, built on the existing technological competences and in accordance with the 

existing business model. Disruptive innovation comes with a radically new business 

model, yet by leveraging on the existing technological competences. Radical innovation, 

instead, is built on the existing business model but requires radically new technical 

competences. This is mostly seen in high-tech, niche sectors where tech competences 

are fast-changing, and companies need constant investments in R&D. Finally, 

architectural innovation combines both technological and business model disruptions, 

and claimed as the most challenging innovations to pursue. 

 

 

2.1.2 Closed and Open Innovation 

The concept of Open Innovation (OI) was originally coined by Henry Chesbrough in his 

book “Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology” 

(2003). Chesbrough defines open innovation as “the use of purposive inflows and 



21 

outflows of knowledge to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for 

external use of innovation, respectively” (p.1). The author also conceptualized the theme 

as a distributive innovation process involving intentional collaborations, across the 

organizational boundaries, for accelerating internal innovation.  Initially the new OI 

paradigm aimed at challenging the existing closed innovation model of R&D, which was 

no longer sustainable and performant.  

 

In the same book, Chesbrough provides the six principles of OI, in contrast with the 

principles of closed innovation (Figure 2). 

 

Closed Innovation Open Innovation 

1 - All the smart people work in our 
organization.  

2 - To profit from R&D we have to discover, 
develop and supply everything ourselves.  

3 - Only if we discover it will we manage to get 
it to market first.  

4 - If our organization is the first to 
commercialize an innovation, we will beat our 
rivals.  

5 - If we create the most and best ideas in our 
industry, we will win.  

6 - If we have full control over the innovation 
process our rivals will not be able to profit 
from our innovative ideas.  

1 - Not all the smart people work in our 
organization.  

2 - External R&D can create value for our 
organization.  

3 - Internal R&D is needed to grasp that value.  

4 - We have to be involved in basic research to 
benefit from it, but the discovery does not have 
to be ours.  

5 - If we make better use of external and 
internal ideas and unify the knowledge 
created, we will win.  

6 - We should optimize the results of our 
organization, combining the sale or licensing of 
our innovation with the purchase of external 
innovation processes whenever they are more 
efficient and economic.  

Figure 2. Principles of closed innovation and open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) 

 

According to Chesbrough (2003), in fact, several factors led to the erosion of the closed 

innovation paradigm, namely globalization of the workplace, the availability of venture 

capital, and the creation of new forms of innovation (e.g. spin-offs) through special 

agreements between the agents, with the aim of fostering new ways of developing ideas 

and technologies outside the firm boundaries.  

 



22 

Over the years, several perspectives have emerged on the topic of OI which differ from 

the original concept coined by Chesbrough. For instance, the notion of “open, distributed 

innovation” coined by von Hippel (2005), deals with the distributed social division of 

labor, with a user-centric, democratized innovation in which different users can exchange 

knowledge and co-create innovative products or services, suggesting that innovation 

does not have to be limited to traditional internal R&D departments. In fact, the author 

challenged the traditional models of innovation where only producers and 

manufacturers were driving innovation processes. 

 

Other authors introduced new perspectives on the topic of OI, as the notion of “open 

source innovation” presented by Raasch, Herstatt, and Balka (2010), or the term “open 

collaborative innovation” (Baldwin and von Hippel, 2011), which refers to the use of 

openly available information for innovation purposes, as “public good”.  

On one hand, Open source innovation refers to a collaborative and transparent approach 

aimed at developing and sharing innovations by using a freely available source (as the 

underlying knowledge). Despite often associated with software development, has now 

expanded also towards business models. The main features of Open source innovation 

are transparency, free accessibility, and non-proprietary nature. Open collaborative 

innovation is more focused on the company strategic approach which includes external 

partners like customers, suppliers, research institutions, and other stakeholders which 

jointly create and develop new solutions. Among the others, knowledge sharing, cross-

functional collaboration, and co-creation are the key elements of this sub-OI domain. 

 

Despite further efforts in integrating the various theories on OI, there is still fundamental 

differences in the conceptualization of the theme.  Following several critics to the 

traditional OI concept and these new theories on the topic, Chesbrough et al. (2014) 

propose a new definition of OI, with the objective of clarifying the traditional paradigm, 

and unifying future work in that area. According to the new definition, OI refers to “a 

distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowledge flows across 



23 

organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary mechanisms in line with 

each organization’s business model” (Chesbrough and Bogers., 2014).  

 

Nowadays the concept of OI has evolved and can also include business model innovation, 

in new contexts that embrace communities and entire ecosystems. The widespread idea 

is that, if companies want to open their innovation boundaries to other parties, such as 

other firms, customers, research institutes and universities, even competitors, they 

should no more innovate within the traditional “closed innovation” approach. Embracing 

new ways of innovating, through OI, was found to be beneficial for companies in order 

to promote flowless innovation and sustain their competitive advantage over time 

(Dahlander and Wallin, 2020). 

 

The core OI theory proposed by Chesbrough (2003), highlights three main OI models 

based on different knowledge flows: 

 

- The Outside-in process, with inbound knowledge flow, involves a flow of external 

knowledge to improve the internal innovation of the company. The assumption of 

such a model is that an inbound of knowledge and technology from other actors is 

needed in order to overcome the internal lack of appropriate knowledge, hence 

furthering innovation. Traditionally, the outside-in process involves partnerships 

between suppliers and clients, but eventually other stakeholders can be part of it, 

such as research institutes or even competitors. 

 

- The Inside-out process, with outbound knowledge flow, involves a transfer of ideas, 

technology and knowledge to the external environment. The idea behind the Inside-

out process of OI is that companies might have internal innovation which does not 

add any specific value to the firm, or that such internal innovation might be 

functional for other firms. In this scenario, collaborations with external partners can 

represent a win-win situation. 



24 

- The Coupled process, with a combination of inbound and outbound flows, involves 

collaborations between companies or different stakeholders (suppliers, clients, 

research institutes, universities). The objective of the coupled OI process is to 

develop and adopt innovation by following a co-creation approach, which is 

fundamental for creating shared value between the participants (Galvagno and Dalli, 

2014). 

 

By analysing the three main models of OI presented by Chesbrough, it appears clear that 

the OI process is dynamic and can vary across organizations, depending on the objectives, 

the delimitations, and the industry. Some companies may emphasize certain 

mechanisms over others, depending on their needs, objectives, and resources.  

 

The drivers behind the decision to implement OI models can vary across organisations 

and industries. First of all, acquiring innovations from external origins involves a two-

step process: companies initially need to identify external outlets of innovation, and 

subsequently integrate those innovations into the organization. According to Bogers and 

West (2012), companies might acquire tangible innovations, technological inventions, or 

expertise, market insights, components, or any other valuable information to foster their 

innovation efforts. Among the factors influencing the use of external innovation sources, 

the need for internal elements like research and development capabilities and 

complementary assets play a significant role (Spithoven & Teirlinck, 2010). Over the 

years, and thanks to the rising availability of information and communication 

technologies, and the role played by the Internet, the process of searching for innovation 

coming from external sources has become almost costless. Among the mechanisms that 

can be exploited to favour the use of external sources of innovation, encouraging 

external partners with effective incentives plays a relevant role, be it in the form of 

monetary or non monetary incentives, as well as by creating structured mechanisms and 

procedures that offer a foundation for external participants to generate and potentially 

distribute innovations.  



25 

Securing innovation from external sources typically involves explicit contractual 

agreements and licensing arrangements, which offer enhanced opportunities for 

exploring technology. However, the effectiveness of licensing or other methods of 

knowledge acquisition relies on factors like the robustness of the intellectual property 

protection system (Chesbrough, 2003b). The acquisition of innovation from external 

sources may occur through obtaining knowledge or technology, or by acquiring the 

suppliers of innovation. 

 

Integrating innovations into the typical R&D activities of the firm is the second, 

challenging step after having identified and acquired external innovations, and usually 

requires a fitting culture in the organisation as well as specific tech capabilities to 

integrate innovations from external sources. With this regard, organizational culture is 

fundamental in the ability of an organization to be able to effectively profit from external 

sources of innovation. Overcoming the so-called “not invented here” attitude is not easy 

at all. According to Dogson et al. (2006), there is a need of strong cultural changes to 

embrace innovation from external sources in order to allow collaboration with partners, 

and this is mostly true for large organizations with successful internal innovation areas, 

which might be less keen on enlarging their innovation processes outside their 

boundaries. Nevertheless, there is definitely more to integration than simply cultural 

considerations. Firms, in fact, possess specific processes and systems that can either 

promote or discourage the utilization of external innovation sources. 

 

Ceccagnoli et al. (2009) claimed that obtaining innovations externally has the potential 

to alter the firm's R&D competencies, influencing both direct and indirect aspects. On 

one hand, the resources dedicated to acquiring innovations from external channels 

might directly diminish the resources allocated for internal innovation. On the other 

hand, external sourcing has the capacity to enhance the internal R&D capabilities of the 

firm. 

 



26 

Finally, commercializing innovations is paramount in the OI paradigm. In fact, a key 

difference between the new Chesbrough’s paradigm and earlier studies of external use 

of innovation is focused on how firms can profit from innovations. Alignment to the 

firm’s business model is therefore the “new” requirement of such innovations. As 

presented before, Chesbrough (2003) specifies that “Open Innovation combines internal 

and external ideas into architectures and systems whose requirements are defined by a 

business model.” Therefore, in the original view of OI, there must be inclusion and 

alignment of the innovation with the firm’s business model, along with a clear 

commercialization strategy. 

 

Among the main motivations to pursue open innovation mechanisms, Chesbrough and 

Crowther (2006) discovered that minimizing costs was considered a "secondary" 

incentive. Cost reduction is indeed a less common objective in comparison to enhancing 

innovation outputs and acquiring external knowledge. Research has also shown that 

there is a positive link between financial performance and getting external sources of 

innovation. However, some studies concluded that relying on external innovation 

sources led to a decline in profitability due to the fact that the rising costs associated 

with external collaborations surpassed the incremental value creation. 

 

 

2.2 Startups 

This chapter provides firstly an overview of the startups phenomenon, and 

subsequentially in relation to open innovation. In fact, OI and Startups are two concepts 

that are closely related. By embracing OI, startups can benefit from external resources, 

expertise, and access to markets, in a mutual collaborative relationship and opportunites 

with established companies, research institutes, and other startups. 

 

Steve Blank's (2010) widely recognized definition of a startup characterizes it as “a 

business entity, in the form of a company, a partnership, or a temporary organization, 

that is established with the prime objective of designing and establishing a sustainable 



27 

and scalable business model”. Blank is also acknowledged for his development of the 

Customer Development methodology, which centres around adopting customer-centric 

strategies for the establishment and expansion of startups. 

 

One of the most popular masterpieces of the literature regarding startups is represented 

by the “The Lean Startup” developed by Eric Ries (2011), which provides a scientific 

approach for the creation and management of startups, by accelerating product 

development and go-to-market process. In the current rapidly changing environment, it 

provides practical insights and a strategic as well as systematic approach to building and 

scaling startups. 

 

According to Ries (2011), the key principles of the lean startup methodology include: 

 

1) Development of a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). A key element of the 

methodology is, in fact, the so-called build-measure-learn feedback loop. 

Instead of creating a detailed business plan upfront, it is more 

recommendable for startups to start by building an MVP after they figure out 

the problems to be addressed and solved, in order to measure its 

performance, and learn from the feedback to make eventual changes and 

improve the products or service. By applying such a method, a company can 

figure out if it needs to pivot or implement a substantial course correction. 

2) Validated Learning. The focus has to be on learning what works and what 

doesn’t work through experimentation and customer feedback. This 

facilitates the adaptation and adjustment of strategies as required. 

3) Continuous Deployment. It is essential to continuously release and test 

product/service updates, which helps in enabling improvements based on 

real-world feedback. 

4) Pivot or Persevere. Being extremely adaptable and flexible is what makes a 

startup more likely to succeed among diverse challenges. The willingness and 

rapidity to implement significant changes to the product or business strategy, 



28 

hence the process of pivoting, based on the feedback received, or persevere 

if the initial hypotheses are valid. 

 

The Lean Startup dramatically challenges the traditional paradigm of writing a long-term 

business plan, forecasting, raising money and then develop the product or service to be 

offered to the market. However, this process is extremely resource-intensive, both in 

terms of economic and human capital, as well as not time efficient (Blank, 2013). 

 

Before deep diving into the role that OI can play for early startups, it is important to 

mention some peculiar features which are embedded into early startups. In particular, 

they face considerable challenges and barriers which are certainly summarised by the 

well-known concepts of Liability of Smallness and Liability of Newness, discussed by 

Perrow in his influential work Complex Organizations: A Critical Essay (1979). According 

to the author, both liabilities are representative of the big challenges and disadvantages 

faced by startups at the very early stages of their existence. Firstly introduced by 

Stinchcombe (1965), the concept of Liability of Newness shows that early organisations 

face complex challenges to compete against more established companies, and are 

precarious especially because they are new to the market. In fact, small, innovative 

startups often lack human and organisational resources, efficient operational routines 

as well as a solid structure. Moreover, they are not well-known in the market and need 

time to build partnerships, create stable supplier chains and gain customers. As a 

consequence, the failure rate of those early organisations is definitely high. 

 

In addition to the Liability of Newness, innovative startups at the early stages usually 

deal with the so-called Liability of Smallness, which refers to some innate limitations 

mostly in terms of resources, human capital, and capabilities, given by the small size of 

such organisations. As a consequence, they are vulnerable to market or dynamics 

changes. The idea is that large businesses present improved chances of survival than 

small new companies (Hannan and Freeman, 1983). Therefore, due to their double 

liability of smallness and newness, startups ultimately have to deal with a structural lack 



29 

of resources, both tangible and intangible ones, in order to compete effectively with 

other, more established companies. Successful startups need to find ways to overcome 

such liabilities, often through innovation, agility, and strategic partnerships (Spender et 

al., 2017). 

 

Essentially, startups face various, significant challenges as they navigate the complexity 

of establishing and growing a new business. Limited financial resources, market 

uncertainty, competition, scaling issues, talent acquisition, as well as product-related 

issues, plus marketing and branding, are just a few of the large number of challenges 

encountered at the early stages of their existence. It is exactly in this insidious 

environment that, in order to successfully navigate these challenges, they need to be 

resilient, adaptable, and then prove the ability to develop a strategic approach to 

problem solving. Many startups, therefore, encounter the opportunity of implementing 

OI mechanisms to overcome these obstacles. 

 

 

2.2.1 Startups in the Open Innovation context 

Over the last few decades, considerable research has been carried out on the 

phenomenon of startups, especially in the areas of entrepreneurship, financing, growth 

and scaling, technology and innovation, as well as policy and regulation.  

 

Regarding long-term survival and success of startups, extensive research has shown that 

building relationships with different stakeholders can lead to the startup’s success over 

time (Kask and Linton, 2013). Specifically, in the domain of OI, Bogers (2011) found that 

adopting OI practices becomes necessary for startups in order to overcome the initial 

challenges given by their double liability. Initial but scarcely analysed results of such a 

field of research have proven the growing importance of OI within startups, yet there are 

still unresolved questions on how startups adopt innovation practices, and why they 

choose some OI mechanisms over others, or basically what drives their OI initiatives.  

 



30 

Spender et al. (2017) presented a theoretical overview of the phenomenon of startups 

within the OI context. The key findings are summarized below: 

 

1. Startups’ networks as a key factor for innovation processes. Firstly, the role of 

networks to foster innovation has been widely recognized by literature. Networks 

are deemed crucial for acquiring new resources or introducing new products or 

services. Overall, a large network of beneficial relationships have a positive effect on 

startups’ innovativeness, but this is true in particular with public networks like 

institutional partners, organisations, other companies. Neyens et al. (2010) 

examined how the duration of alliances influences the innovation performance of 

startups. They revealed that establishing enduring alliances with customers, 

suppliers, and competitors positively contributes to a startup's capacity for 

generating radical innovation. In contrast, forming brief alliances with customers, 

suppliers, and competitors positively contributes to a startup's ability to generate 

incremental innovation. 

 

2. Partners through Open Innovation mechanisms. Opening up the innovation process 

involves the engagement of startups in relationships with various types of partners 

such as incubators, large corporations, public institutions and research institutes, 

and venture capitalist firms. The role of the business incubator, be it technology, 

industrial or university incubator, is to stimulate innovation and support the startups 

along its complete lifecycle. With this regard, universities play a marginal role as a 

source of new ideas for startups in the incubator, while they are more relevant in the 

later stages of new product development. On the other hand, partnering up with 

large companies can be beneficial when there is a bigger need of network which 

certainly the large company has. 

 

3. The role of the startups’ ecosystem on OI processes. A startups’ ecosystem is a 

group encompassed by various organizations interacting in order to promote the 

success of startups. An active and efficient financing system, comprised by both 

private and public financing, is considered relevant to grant success of the startups’ 



31 

ecosystem. According to Ferrary and Granovetter (2011), especially an effective 

system of venture capital is often regarded as a key success factor for the ecosystem, 

while public financing does not always meet the larger financial necessities and 

investment needs of startups. 

 

Research in OI and Startups has produced several insights to identify the different ways 

and mechanisms to overcome both Liability of Smallness and Liability of Newness. In 

particular, it is widely recognized that adopting OI practices and mechanisms represents 

a necessity for innovative startups in order to overcome the initial lack of resources, and 

develop new innovative solutions. However, the literature on OI for startups is very 

diversified. For instance, extensive streams of research have focused on the role of 

partnerships and networks on the decision to start a new venture; many studies have 

also examined the effectiveness of OI practices on entrepreneurial decision-making. 

However, in the OI literature, the relevance of networks has always been paramount as 

well as instrumental for developing positive innovation processes. 

 

 

2.3 Open Innovation between large established companies and startups: 

Why should David and Goliath synergize and cooperate? 

Over the last decade, and especially during and after the outbreak of the COVID-19 

pandemic, the phenomenon of OI has been expanding in established companies, 

particularly regarding collaborations with startups. On one hand, the advantages and 

success factors of OI have been researched exhaustively. On the other hand, how OI is 

managed and implemented between partners is yet to be fully understood. It is still quite 

acknowledged that startups can represent a winning partner for more established 

companies that are willing to cooperate and innovate together, by implementing 

solutions through innovative technologies, products, services or processes (Dahlander 

and Wallin, 2020), 

 



32 

Major established companies have traditionally explored ways to become more 

entrepreneurial oriented. They have experimented with various mechanisms such as 

corporate venture capital, internal incubators, strategic alliances, and joint ventures, 

adopting and sometimes discarding these strategies. However, the emergence and 

growing viability of startup firms, coupled with their inherent disruptive nature, create a 

new urgency for the development of more agile and rapid approaches for large 

companies to interact with the startup community. Rather than perceiving startups 

solely as agents of disruption, companies are now actively seeking collaboration with 

startups to transform them into catalysts for corporate innovation. This shift brings about 

three noteworthy consequences. Firstly, corporations must adeptly screen, identify, 

collaborate with, and monitor a larger number of startups than before, given the 

expanding and globally dispersed startup ecosystem. This necessitates swifter decision-

making across a multitude of potential relationships. Secondly, corporations need to be 

aware of their value proposition, and how they can propose value to startups already 

connected to independent venture capitalists, incubators, and other support institutions. 

Lastly, corporations should have a clear understanding of their objectives in engaging 

with startups, with the strategic goals of the corporation dictating the most suitable 

model(s) for their collaboration with startups (Chesbrough and Weiblen, 2015). 

 

According to Chesbrough et Weiblen (2015), “When it comes to agility, startups have an 

edge over large corporations—whereas large corporations sit on resources which 

startups can only dream of. The combination of entrepreneurial activity with corporate 

ability seems like a perfect match”. Fundamentally, large corporations and startup are 

totally different organizations by nature, and each party possesses what the other one 

is lacking. Moreover, the inherent nature of startups of risk taking and experimentation 

puts them in a pole position for driving breakthrough innovations.  

 

In addition to being recognized by academic environments, collaborative OI mechanisms 

with startups have gained momentum in the last few years, with several practitioners 

and business experts which have repeatedly celebrated the positive impact of fruitful 



33 

collaborations between more established companies and startups, as a win-win 

approach to solve grand challenges and foster a sustainable growth (Dahlander and 

Wallin, 2020). 

 

The success factors of joint innovation projects can be manifold for both the established 

company and the start-up organisation. For instance, thanks to the strategic cooperation, 

the start-up can get access to financial, technological, and knowledge resources of the 

partner (Hite and Hesterly, 2001). Similarly, the traditional company can learn from the 

startup’s lean and agile attitude, while potentially benefit from the startup’s new 

technologies which can be strategically relevant for the company’s long-term success 

despite the initial investments (Hogenhuis, 2016). Leveraging external knowledge to 

reinforce its innovative performance is also among the factors that influence the choice 

of collaborating with startups, from the perspective of the large company. 

 

Moreover, Hogenhuis (2016) presented a collaboration decision-making model for large 

firms when considering a productive partnership with young ventures, which aims at 

providing managers with a useful framework to select fruitful startups as strategic 

partners. Such a model is built on some key factors, such as the exploratory or focused 

nature of the project, the need of manufacturing capabilities, and the role of the 

manager in charge of the project. All of those factors are relevant when choosing the 

right partner. For instance, the author argues that in less focused, exploratory projects, 

large companies are mainly looking for specific technological know-how or creativity. On 

the contrary, collaborative projects where manufacturing capabilities are relevant, 

young startups are less likely to be a good fit, as they usually lack the structural 

capabilities to manufacture on a large scale. Finally, the author underlines the relevant 

challenges of asymmetry collaborations between large firms and young ventures, 

especially in terms of organisational structure or the lack of good documentation skills 

in startups, thus stressing the importance of the right partner selection. 

 



34 

Chesbrough's investigation into General Electric’s OI initiatives with startups, through 

the 2012 Ecoimagination Challenge demonstrates that not every connection with 

startups yields positive results. The study highlights the necessity for substantial 

relationships between large established firms and startups to progress from basic 

connections to intricate associations for mutual benefit. Large corporations have 

adopted various strategies, including corporate venture capital, internal incubators, 

strategic alliances, and joint ventures, to collaborate with startups, foster new ventures, 

or establish spin-offs. The rapid growth and increasing viability of startup firms, coupled 

with their disruptive potential, underscore the need for large companies to develop 

more agile and efficient methods for engaging with the startup community.  

 

Usman and Vanhaverbeke (2017) present two comprehensive case studies of effective 

collaborations between large companies and startups. In the first case, a large 

corporation implement and commercialize a startup’s innovative solution, while the 

second case shows how a startup develops a disused technology which was developed 

in the past by a large company. The results of the first case show how a startup can 

capitalize on its groundbreaking technology through collaboration with a major 

corporation. This partnership results in a mutually beneficial outcome for both the large 

company and the startup. In fact, the startup benefits from engaging in outbound Open 

Innovation in multiple ways: 

 

• it has the ability to bring its technology to the market without the need to invest in 

supporting assets.  

• It also retains the flexibility to target selected markets, which are not directly 

interested by the large company 

• The generated royalty income provides resources for investing in R&D activities for 

emerging technologies.  

 

On the other hand, the large company benefits from the partnership by: 



35 

• Acquiring a new technology without the requirement of extensive and costly 

research projects 

• The new technology accelerates its time to market, and can purchase the technology 

if the startup proves to be successful 

• Enhancing the company’s reputation as a reliable innovation partner for startups. 

 

The second case study explores how a large company can benefit from licensing an 

underutilized technology to a promising startup. The licensing agreement seems 

advantageous for both parties, creating a mutually beneficial scenario. The startup gains 

numerous advantages from this partnership: 

 

• It gains access to a ground-breaking technology crucial for its commercial success 

• It receives continuous support from the large company in advancing the technology 

and products, thus accelerating the innovation process 

• The partnership with the large company entails inherent value for the startup as it 

makes collaborations with other companies and organisations way easier thanks to 

the large network available. 

 

On the other hand, the large company profits from this collaboration in several ways: 

• It can gain financial and non-financial benefits, including insights and discoveries 

applicable to other related fields. 

• It can observe the progression of developing a new technology and bringing it to the 

market within a startup 

• This specific indirect involvement also suggests that the large company has the 

option to acquire the startup if it continues to expand and becomes strategically 

relevant. 

 

Both case studies show effective and successful OI collaboration between a startup and 

a larger, more structured company. The study presented by Usman and Vanhaverbeke 

(2017), shows how both partners can tackle challenges by utilizing the skills and assets 



36 

of the counterpart. Figure 3 illustrates the key benefits, as well as challenges and barriers 

in the inbound and outbound OI process, related to startups. 

 

 

Figure 3. Benefits and challenges for startups in inbound and outbound Open Innovation 

(Usman and Vanhaverbeke, 2017). 

 

 

2.4 Sustainability: a broad concept 

In today’s world, sustainability has become increasingly critical as societies recognize the 

interconnectedness of the world’s global challenges. as presented in the introductory 

chapter. With continuous integration among international people, companies, and 

institutions worldwide, as well as with an extensive flow of goods, services, technologies, 

and information across national borders, there is an increasing need of more sustainable, 

responsible actions to solve the pressing challenges of our society (UN, 2015). 

 

This chapter introduces the concept of sustainable development and its the three pillars, 

as well as the main theories on the topic. Finally, a discussion on how OI can be 

integrated with sustainability will be presented. 

 

 

2.4.1.  The concept of Sustainable Development 

 



37 

Sustainable development, or sustainability, can be defined as “development that meets 

the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet 

their own needs” (UN Brundtland Commission, 1987). Initially, the focus was merely on 

environmental issues, while later in 1993, the World Bank economist Mohan 

Munansighe presented sustainable development as a triple approach concept, focusing 

on the economic, ecological, and socio-cultural issues to be considered when engaging 

with sustainability in a truly holistic approach. Despite initially sustainability was strongly 

linked with economic reasons, over time the integration of environmental and social 

considerations into the sustainability concept increased significally. Today, sustainability 

encompasses a wide range of topics, in the domain of CSR, Marketing for sustainability, 

sustainable supply chains, and other streams of research which tend to focus more on 

specific fields of studies. Regarding this research topic, several studies have explored the 

role of sustainable innovations, and more recently the role of OI for sustainable 

development. In the following sections an overview of the relevant studies on the 

integration of OI and sustainability will be presented. 

 

Several representations of sustainability were introduced over the last decades, in order 

to provide a clearer understanding, both conceptual and visual, of the concept. For 

instance, a popular visual representation involves the three interconnected pillars, 

economic, social, and environmental, which sustains and foster sustainable 

development. An alternative representation, which gained more popularity over time, 

includes sustainability as the result of three intersecting spheres representing economic, 

social, and environmental aspects, as shown in figure 4. 

 



38 

 

Figure 4. The three spheres of sustainability (University of Michigan Sustainability 

Assessment, 2002) 

 

The concept of economic sustainability, from a micro perspective, can be explained as 

the ability of a company to sustain its economic and financial performance indefinitely, 

and therefore the “core idea is how organizations stay in business” (Jeronen, 2020). 

Furthermore, economic sustainability refers to the optimal use of existing resources in 

order to maintain positive economic results over time. This definition can also be 

referred as “weak sustainability”, while under the “strong sustainability” view, economic 

sustainability emphasises an organisation’s ability to foster economic development and 

growth by preserving the environmental and social impact of their operations.  

 

As mentioned in the introductory chapter, the concept of sustainability is originally 

linked with environmental considerations, especially in the domain of resource 

management (Hediger, 1999). Under the environmental perspective, sustainability deals 

with an effective management of resources for future conservation, as all biosystems 

have finite resources. Under this perspective, there are critical business issues, from the 



39 

impact of industrialization on biodiversity, or the continuous use of non-renewable 

resources such as oil, steel, coal, as well as the production of CO2 and GHG emissions 

(Crane and Matten, 2019). When analysed on a more fundamental level, the concept of 

environmental sustainability is strictly related to economic growth, as the two aspects 

often were regarded as opposed. Despite concerns over the possibility of achieving 

growth without compromising the environment, several companies are now 

implementing innovative sustainability strategies into their business models, such as 

Patagonia, which on a popular advertising campaign was trying to persuade its 

customers to buy less, while raising awareness on sustainable consumption (Crane and 

Matten, 2019). 

 

 

2.5 Sustainable Open Innovation 

In today's rapidly evolving world, the intersection of sustainability and innovation has 

become increasingly vital. New approaches leverage on this intersection with the 

objective of fostering a ground for co-creation and exchange of sustainable ideas. As 

presented in the introductory chapter, in a popular article titled “Tackling Grand 

Challenges Pragmatically”, Ferraro et al. (2015) firstly coined the word Grand Challenges, 

by referring to great issues of today’s societies, such as climate change and poverty, and 

called for a pragmatic multilateral approach to solve these challenges. Such great 

challenges demand that businesses, civil society, and institutions, start to significantly 

increase the level of collaboration in order to implement effective solutions. The call for 

multilateral effort through effective partnerships was launched already at the 2002 

World Summit on Sustainable Development held in South Africa, as a way to foster 

sustainability and integrate sustainability concerns into projects decisions. Subsequently, 

the 2030 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development emphasised the need of effective 

partnerships between companies in order to facilitate the transition to a more 

sustainable world. According to such multilateral project, increasing the level of 

collaboration is paramount to reach the most relevant targets of the UN Agenda (United 

Nations, 2015).  



40 

 

Organisations are therefore increasingly required to explore innovative solutions to 

achieve long term sustainability goals, and may take different approaches to integrate 

innovation with sustainability. On one hand, many traditional organisations tend to view 

a trade off between profitability and sustainability goals, as if sustainability was 

perceived mostly as a “cost” rather than an investment, therefore with no profitable 

return. Another approach, which is becoming more popular nowadays, is to include 

sustainability in the overall business strategy with a collaborative approach which 

includes multiple stakeholders.  

  

In the research domain, there has been an increasing call to strong efforts to work in 

collaborative innovation networks, which has been linked to positive outcomes in 

approaching sustainability issues. Lopes et al. (2017) highlighted the importance of OI, 

through which companies “can promote sustainable innovation from a social, 

environmental and economic point of view”. Overall, OI  can be a valuable tool for 

organizations looking to drive change and promote sustainability. By leveraging the 

expertise and ideas of a wider network of stakeholders, organizations can more 

effectively address the challenges and opportunities of the fast changing environment, 

and drive the development of innovative and impactful solutions. 

 

There is a broad and deep discussion in the literature about the fundamental relevance 

of innovation in achieving sustainability goals, but the mechanisms and the 

implementation of OI for sustainability can often be challenging (Enkel and Gassmann, 

2010).  

 

 

2.5.1.  The concept of Sustainable Open Innovation 

Innovation alone does not imply a natural shift to sustainable development. Actually, 

innovation can also have negative effects on sustainability, and innovative technologies 

can worsen sustainability problems. For example, the widespread use of new and 



41 

innovative pesticides or synthetic materials mighty cause harmful effects on ecosystems 

or society. At the same time, innovations in marketing and product design might 

encourage excessive consumerism, hence a culture of overconsumption which leads to 

increased waste generation and environmental impact. However, by including 

sustainability into innovation, firms can come up with new products or services, as well 

as processes, that are both innovative and sustainable, and can serve well both the 

organization and society in the long term (Hill, 2023). In the rapidly evolving economic 

landscape, adopting OI mechanisms has become a part of business strategy for many 

companies, which are now integrating more and more external partners into new 

product or service development with the aim of developing innovative solutions which 

are also sustainable. 

Bogers et al. (2020) introduced the concept of Sustainable Open Innovation (SOI), which 

is defined as “a distributed innovation process which is based on purposively managed 

knowledge flows across organizational boundaries, using pecuniary and non-pecuniary 

mechanisms in line with the organization’s business model, thereby contributing to 

development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of 

future generations to meet their own needs”. Such a definition combines the key concept 

of OI with the definition of sustainability given by the Brundtland commission in 1987. 

In fact, the concept combines the key elements of OI with a commitment to long-term 

environmental and social goals. According to Arnold and Hockerts (2011), SOI refers to 

implemented ideas that enhance environmental and/or social outcomes when 

compared to the existing circumstances. SOI focuses on optimizing resource utilization, 

enhancing products and services, and developing innovative business models, all of 

which align with conventional business principles (Nidumolu et al., 2009). In light of 

these definitions, it becomes clear that SOI includes broader environmental and social 

sustainability, therefore OI projects which include strong environmental and social 

principles could be defined as projects driven by SOI. 

As the need for multilateral collaborations for sustainability becomes more and more 

apparent, as presented in the literature so far, SOI can be seen as a business driver that 



42 

can enhance overall performance and provide a competitive advantage, despite 

traditionally sustainability was perceived as costly (Porter, 1995). According to Hall and 

Wagner (2011), organizations need to understand the factors that could boost their 

efforts in achieving groundbreaking innovations for new sustainable products. Key 

aspects that set apart Sustainable Organizational Innovations (SOI) include the level of 

innovation and the extent of planned enhancements in environmental and/or social 

performance. Studies indicate that initiatives aiming for radical improvements in 

sustainability face challenges such as high complexity, uncertainty, and inadequate 

financial returns. 

In the popular article Sustainable Open Innovation to Address a Grand Challenge: 

Lessons from Carlsberg and the Green Fiber Bottle, Bogers et al. (2020) presented the 

case study of Carlsberg, the Danish beer manufacturer, which created the Green Fiber 

Bottle within its sustainability initiative using an open innovation strategy, in conjunction 

with complementary partners. This study demonstrates the characteristics of 

successfully tackling a significant sustainability challenge through collaborative 

innovation, and present challenges and opportunities that arise in the process. 

Regarding the Green Fiber Bottle, the initial driving force behind its creation was a 

commitment to enhancing sustainability performance. Many sustainability issues, in fact, 

start with the organization recognizing that it is negatively impacting the environment, 

but does not have the internal resources to mitigate such an impact, while keeping 

consistency with its overall business strategy. According to George et al., (2016), The 

inherent uncertainty and complexity of significant challenges, such as the one related to 

plastic waste in this instance, often necessitate coordinated and collaborative 

endeavours. And here is precisely where the two themes of sustainability and open 

innovation converge. This is also an example of “sustainability-driven open innovation” 

which aligns with the “purpose-driven, non-pecuniary” factors that drive individuals and 

organizations to pursue such projects.  

According to Cappa et al (2016), SOI approaches can lead to significant improvements of 

sustainability performance like cost reductions, a more efficient use of resources and 



43 

lower pollutant emissions, thus making a positive impact on the environment. A recent 

report released by Capgemini (2023), finds that companies embrace open innovation to 

enhance current products, innovate new ones, establish novel business models, and 

optimize R&D expenditures. Additionally, the study notes that 83% of organizations view 

open innovation as a crucial determinant for achieving sustainability objectives. However, 

the research also shows that larger organizations are, on average, struggling more with 

open innovation for sustainability purposes. In fact, according to Pascal Brier, Chief 

Innovation Officer of Capgemini, while businesses recognize the significance of open 

innovation for sustainability and are increasing their investments in it, a considerable 

number remain dissatisfied with the present results. To overcome this, large companies 

must broaden their network to include a diverse range of partners, allowing for a more 

ambitious innovation approach and, ultimately, realizing greater long-term business 

value. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



44 

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

In this chapter, the research design and the methodology chosen for this study are 

provided. Firstly, the philosophical considerations will be presented, considering the 

underlying principles and assumptions which guided the author’s approach to the study 

and highlighting its significance in the context of the study. Subsequentially, the research 

design is presented in order to explain the reasons behind the use of a qualitative, 

exploratory method. The third section entails the methodology for data collection, 

elucidating the semi-structured interview process for primary data collection and 

outlining the approach employed for gathering secondary data. Additionally, it provides 

insights into the sample selection. The concluding paragraph focuses on evaluating the 

data's quality. 

 

 

3.1 Research philosophy 

According to Saunders et al. (2019), research philosophy “refers to a system of beliefs 

and assumptions about the development of knowledge”. It is based on epistemological, 

ontological, and axiological assumptions, which eventually impact the way the author 

understands the research questions, as well as the methods to interpret findings. In 

particular, ontological assumptions are linked to the nature of reality, and surely 

Influence the way in which you perceive and examine your subjects of research. 

Epistemological assumptions entail the nature of knowledge, its validity and legitimacy, 

and the way knowledge can be communicated to the external environment. It is surely 

more concrete than ontology, as it includes different types of data which can have total 

legitimacy. Therefore, the choice of using different epistemological methods depends 

also on the objectives and delimitations of the research. Finally, axiology deals with the 

broad function of values and ethical considerations in the research process. The choice 

of the topic, among a different and vast number of topics, reflects how that specific topic 

is important for the author. Axiological considerations can be applied also to the choice 

of the data collection. For instance, choosing to conduct a qualitative study based on 



45 

interviews Indicates a greater appreciation for engaging personally with the participants 

in your study, rather than analysing views conveyed via anonymous questionnaires.  

 

Examples of research philosophies include positivism, realism, interpretivism, and 

pragmatism, as mentioned by Saunders et al. (2019). This thesis adopts an interpretivist 

philosophy to comprehend the authentic significance of expressions, recognizing the 

potential variations in meaning for everyone, influenced by their surrounding 

environment. According to Saunders et al. (2019), the interpretivist approach assumes 

that reality is subjective and therefore can be perceived differently by diverse individuals. 

Furthermore, the data gathered and analysed would be less likely to be generalised 

through adoption of the interpretivist paradigm given the consideration that data were 

mainly dependent on a specific context, viewpoint, and values. This approach was 

selected primarily because of the nature of the study, which aims at analysing the 

context of OI within large companies and startups, and the relationship between OI and 

sustainability. 

 

With regard to theory development, the research literature so far has widely discussed 

and adopted three main approaches: deductive, inductive, and abductive. These 

approaches influence how the stream of knowledge under examination is presented. 

The deductive approach involves testing existing theories and basing research on a 

theoretical framework derived from academic literature, with the aim of clarifying 

specific phenomena. Conversely, the inductive approach seeks to generate new findings 

and develop theory based on systematically collected data. Lastly, the abductive 

approach seeks to develop innovative understandings of phenomena by collecting data, 

testing theories, and proposing modifications or additional propositions (Saunders et al. 

2019). 

 

This study adopts a mixed approach, linking elements of both deductive and inductive 

reasoning. It adopts mainly an inductive approach, which is aimed at generating new 

insights through a bottom-up approach, deriving general principles from specific results, 



46 

allowing theories to emerge after the systematic analysis of the collected data. The 

objective is to integrate more precisely the current findings of the literature in a more 

exploratory manner. The reason behind the adoption of such an approach is given by the 

little literature present on the topic of SOI. However, the study also leverages the existing 

literature of OI in order to address the RQs and analyse the findings. Therefore, it is 

important to show the previous research on OI, specifically involving the dynamics of OI 

between large companies and startups, with the aim of generating new insights and 

perspectives through the examination of the collected qualitative data. 

 

 

3.2 Research design 

This study is designed to be exploratory, given that the main objective is to evaluate the 

key dynamics of SOI between large companies and startups, which is not broadly 

illustrated in the actual literature. Moreover, given that there is not precise theoretical 

framework which combines the theme of SOI, the purpose of the study will be to 

redefine more precisely the current findings, and provide a contribution to the existing 

yet little literature on the topic. The gaps presented in the introductory section would be 

addressed with this exploratory study established on real case studies. This exploratory 

nature of the study allows more flexibility and potential adjustments, with the objective 

of uncovering new insights and laying the groundwork for more focused investigations. 

Given the limited existing knowledge on the topic, the primary goal of such a method is 

to build hypotheses rather than testing specific hypotheses. 

 

Regarding the research method, this study adopts a multi-approach method, through 

several case studies which are conducted in specific selected companies. This would 

allow to better understand the internal dynamics of the selected companies, thanks to 

a holistic approach. The advantages of the mixed approach include the opportunity of 

deep diving into the OI dynamics of the selected companies, with the goal of analysing 

with effectiveness the key factors behind the implementation of OI, in order to answer 

the research questions and fulfil the objectives of the study. 



47 

 

This study is designed to be qualitative. Qualitative data relies on the interpretation of 

meanings conveyed through words and images. Gathering such data leads to non-

standardized information, which needs categorization, and its analysis is carried out 

through the process of conceptualization. Therefore, data will be gathered through 

diverse sources and methodologies to guarantee the research's validity, reliability, and 

credibility (Saunders et al. 2019). 

 

In this study a combination of primary and secondary data will be chosen. 

Predominantly, primary data will be collected through semi-structured interviews within 

the selected companies which will serve as case studies, thanks to their active 

management and knowledge of OI. In particular, both the point of view of large 

companies and startups will be presented. Also secondary data will be used in order to 

develop a deeper knowledge of the companies interested to the case studies, and 

eventually enhancing the existing framework of the dynamics of SOI. By using secondary 

data, the goal is to develop a broader framework of the main reasons behind the 

adoption of SOI from both startups and large companies. The sources of secondary data 

will be text and non-text documents, data-set, annual reports, company websites and 

press release. Such multiple data sources can allow an inclusive and broad depiction of 

the case study, with the goal of comparing and broadening the theoretical framework 

on SOI presented in the previous chapters. The adoption of a qualitative research 

method, through semi-structured interviews, is chosen in order to lead to a better 

understanding of the dynamics to be analysed, as it can provide relevant insights thanks 

to high-quality, more intense interaction. Moreover, qualitative data are generally more 

varied, complex, and richer in content, and enables the researcher to explore complex 

subjects. Adopting semi-structured interviews offer a great flexible format in which, 

despite the presence of a predetermined set of questions and topics, the interviewer 

can freely explore and follow up responses in a conversational manner. The presence of 

open-ended questions encourages participants to provide detailed responses, and can 



48 

allow a deeper understanding of the interviewees’ perspectives, experiences, and 

opinions (Saunders et al., 2019). 

  

Regarding the sample, it will be chosen based on convenience, availability, and personal 

network for reaching companies that are involved in OI projects. Specifically, this study 

includes perspectives on OI from both sides of the picture. On one hand, the selected 

large, established companies which have implemented internally OI can provide 

relevant insights into how OI works for them, the reasons behind the choice of pursuing 

an OI approach, and eventually the key elements of the collaboration with startups for 

implementing sustainable solutions. On the other hand, startups can provide their 

reasons to collaborate with more established companies, as well as the benefits, risks, 

and barriers of such OI partnerships. The overall objective of the researcher, in fact, is 

to investigate both sides of the partnership, analysing their relationship and eventually 

be able to respond to the RQs. The choice and availability of the sample companies 

turned out to be extremely relevant for the purpose of this study, as two different cases 

of SOI will be presented, which entail collaborations between a large,  established 

company, and the innovative startup. 

 

The choice of the right companies for this study is important for reaching the objectives 

of the study. First of all, finding the right person who has knowledge about the topic of 

OI, is necessary in order to collect reliable data and insights. This is the first and most 

important prerogative for a reliable and trustworthy approach to the empirical part. The 

case studies are all selected in coherence with the literature, the RQs, and the objectives 

of the research. For this reason, this study presents a double partnership between a large 

company and a startup, therefore two large companies and two startups which mutually 

collaborate for different purposes. 

 



49 

 
Figure 5. The research onion (Saunders, Lewis & Thornhill, 2019). 

 

 

 

3.3 Data Collection 

As previously mentioned, this study combines both primary and secondary data sources 

in order to have a comprehensive amount of evidence to better answer the RQs and 

align with the thesis’ objectives.  

 

Regarding primary data collection, there is a combination of in-person and virtual 

interviews with the selected participants. The procedure is the same for every interviews. 

Firstly, the researcher selected the interesting sample for the case studies, following the 

criteria presented before, and accordingly to the study’s objectives. Then, a list of 

potential participants was contacted among the interested sample. Some of them 

showed positive interest in the case study and agreed on being interviewed, for a total 

of five respondents. Those participants were among the top choices and represented a 

significant feature which would validate the case study. In the end, two large companies 



50 

were contacted: the Italian energy giants Snam and Italgas, and two startups, Limenet 

and Oraigo, which collaborate respectively with Snam and Itlalgas on joint Open 

Innovation projects. Both the large corporates, Snam and Italgas, were contacted 

through the author’s personal network, while the startups were identified while 

interviewing the referents of both large companies. In those contexts, given the specific 

relevance and pertinence of the collaborations with the two startups presented, they 

were eventually contacted by the author for the interviews. Therefore, in the end, four 

interesting case studies of SOI are presented, involving collaborations between large 

companies and startups in an OI context. 

 

In the first phase of the data collection process, also the design and process of the 

interview were delineated.  The questions were formulated considering the theoretical 

foundations and adjusted to align with the RQ and the study's objectives. The interview 

guide was prearranged in advance and shared with the companies simultaneously during 

the phase of participant recruitment. It must be noted that the interview text took into 

consideration the different nature of the companies involved. The themes discussed 

during the interviews were similar, in the case of the large companies as well as the 

startups, yet the focus was slightly different, without compromising the validity and 

reliability of the data collected. This choice was made by the author in order to meet the 

different nature of the selected companies, and to align with the interpretivist 

background.  

 

Also secondary data were collected, mainly through internet sources. They come from 

publicly available sources, especially companies’ websites, press releases, and articles. 

The secondary data presented in this study serves as a way to grasp a wider overview on 

the main drivers of the implementation of OI, and understand the different OI activities 

which are in place in the selected companies. 

 

 



51 

Overall, 5 interviews were concluded. They took place online, lasted from 30 to 75 

minutes, and the language was Italian. Only the core concepts of the interviews were 

translated in English.  

 

Table 1 shows a summary of the interview process, along with the specific roles of the 

companies’ respondents which were interviewed.  

 

 

Table 1. Summary of the interview process 

 

 

Interview process 

 

Snam 

 

Italgas 

 

Limenet 

 

Oraigo 

 

Date 

 

B.A: 27/12/2023 

M.L: 11/01/2024 

 

 

12/01/2024 

 

18/01/2024 

 

18/01/2024 

 

Location 

 

Online 

 

Online 

 

Online 

 

 

Online 

 

Duration 

 

B.A: 1 hr 7 min 

M.L: 35 min 

 

 

49 min 

 

46 min 

 

42 min 

 

Language 

 

Italian 

 

Italian 

 

Italian 

 

Italian 

 

 

 

Job position of 

the interviewees 

 

 

M.L. 

PMO OI 

 

B.A. 

OI Specialist 

 

 

 

F.C. 

Head of OI 

 

 

M.G. 

Co-Founder 

 

 

B.C. 

Junior Impact 

Assessment 

Specialist 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



52 

3.4 Data Analysis 

According to Saunders et al. (2019), utilizing qualitative data may offer a broad 

perspective for the study, yet it can arise challenges in the articulation of the meanings 

conveyed by the interviewees. They are definitely well-suited for the exploratory nature 

of this study, as thet allow the author to generate hypotheses which can build on the 

existing literature. In this study, the findings are therefore classified and restructured for 

a clearer representation of the respondents’ considerations and insights. Given the 

qualitative nature of the data, they inherently lack standardization, and therefore they 

need to be classified in order to align with the study’s objectives. 

 

As previously mentioned, primary data collected through interviews serve as the primary 

source of information for developing the empirical section. In addition, secondary data 

sourced from articles, company websites, and annual reports were utilized. The data 

obtained though the interviews are analysed to establish connections with the 

theoretical part. On one hand, they provide empirical evidence to support the previously 

discussed theory, while on the other hand they are used to build up the theoretical 

framework which will be presented at the end of the findings section. The data were 

analysed through mainly an inductive approach by the author, in accordance with the 

exploratory nature of the study. As a consequence, the goal is to generate new insights, 

theories, and generalisations based on empirical observations. However, it is important 

to underline that the theoretical part serves as a guide for developing the empirical 

section, therefore it is functional in building up the final theoretical framework. 

 

The five interviews were analysed through a comprehensive examination of the data 

provided, with a specific focus on the data which were considered appropriate for the 

study. With this regard, it is important to analyse the interviews by taking into account 

the inherent meanings expressed by the respondents. In the following chapter, selected 

quotes from the interviews are included in order to enhance the comprehension and 

capture the essence of the information provided. Such an analytical approach addresses 



53 

the challenge of oversimplifying qualitative analysis, thereby ensuring that core aspects 

and considerations are not overlooked. 

 

 



54 

4 KEY FINDINGS AND EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION 

 

In this section, the empirical findings will be analysed in order to address the RQs and 

meet the empirical objectives outlined in the introductory chapter. The primary 

objective is to establish a connection between the theoretical part and the empirical 

results. However, given the exploratory nature of the study, the focus will be on the new 

insights coming from the data analysis. In the beginning, the author provides an 

overview of the selected companies, focusing on the role of OI within these companies, 

both in a general way and more specifically in relation to sustainable development. 

Subsequently, the findings coming from the primary data will be summarized and 

presented. Initially, the focus will be on the key drivers for the implementation of OI 

between large companies and startups, in order to be able to answer the first RQ. 

Secondly, the author will investigate the benefits and positive aspects, as well as the 

main issues, of the OI approach between large companies and startups, and this will be 

functional in order to answer the second RQ. 

 

 

4.1 Presentation of the case studies 

Below an overview of the case studies will be presented. Overall, a total of five interviews 

will be conducted, in the following four companies: Snam, Italgas, Limenet, and Oraigo. 

The first 2 companies are large and well-established companies with a strong heritage