Corporate Social Business Incubators : How can Corporate Social Business Incubators foster Open Social Innovation : Qualitative evidence from Spain

Politecnico di Torino Master of Science in Industrial and Environmental Engineering 2022/2023 Corporate Social Business Incubators: How can Corporate Social Business Incubators foster Open Social Innovation: Qualitative evidence from Spain Tutor: Prof. Paolo Landoni Co-Tutor: Giuliano Sansone, Ph.D. Student: Mar Corruchaga Abstract This research study investigates the role of Corporate Social Business Incubators (CSBIs) in fostering Open Social Innovation (OSI) within the Spanish context. OSI, characterized by collaboration, transparency, and inclusivity, has emerged as a promising approach to address complex social challenges. CSBIs, as entities that support and nurture social ventures with corporate involvement, have the potential to significantly contribute to OSI efforts. The primary aim of this study is to explore how CSBIs facilitate and promote OSI initiatives in Spain. To achieve this, a qualitative research design was adopted, incorporating in-depth interviews as the main data collection method. A diverse group of stakeholders, including representatives from CSBIs, social entrepreneurs, corporate leaders, and social innovation experts, were interviewed to obtain valuable insights and perspectives. The findings reveal that CSBIs play a crucial role in promoting OSI by providing various forms of support, such as financial resources, mentorship, networking opportunities, and access to corporate expertise. These elements enhance social ventures' capacity to collaborate, experiment, and co-create solutions with multiple stakeholders, including non-profits, academia, and local communities. Furthermore, CSBIs act as intermediaries, fostering partnerships between social entrepreneurs and corporations, thereby facilitating the exchange of knowledge, resources, and expertise. Moreover, the study highlights the importance of trust-building mechanisms and transparent communication between the involved parties to foster successful OSI initiatives. CSBIs serve as neutral spaces that facilitate constructive dialogues and partnerships, contributing to the development of sustainable, impactful, and socially responsible solutions. However, challenges such as aligning corporate goals with social impact objectives and measuring the long-term societal outcomes of OSI initiatives have been identified. Despite these challenges, the research underscores the critical role of CSBIs in creating an enabling environment for open collaboration and innovation. In conclusion, this study sheds light on the instrumental role of CBSI in fostering OSI in Spain. The findings provide valuable insights in advancing social entrepreneurship and driving positive societal change through open collaboration and innovation. Further research is encouraged to explore the scalability and sustainability of OSI efforts facilitated by CSBIs across diverse social contexts and industries. Keywords: startups, open social innovation, corporate business social incubators, entrepreneurship, social impact, sustainability. Acknowledgements I would like to express my deepest gratitude and appreciation to all those who have supported and contributed to my academic journey up to this final moment. Firstly, I am immensely thankful to my home university Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, for all the lessons learned and for providing me the opportunity to participate in this extraordinary exchange program. This experience has been truly transformative, enabling to expand my perspectives, immersing myself in a different culture, and establishing meaningful connections with students from diverse backgrounds. I couldn't think of a better way to end this academic stage, learning and enriching myself in every possible way. My sincere gratitude to the faculty members and advisors who guided me throughout the process. Additionally, I would like to extend my thanks to the so well coming Politecnico di Torino. Without them this project would not have been possible, and they have played a key role in the process of acquiring, not only new knowledge, but also new ways of learning. Special thanks to the Social Innovation Monitor, well known research group of this university, which has helped drive my research giving me the necessary tools and advice. Thanks to his two magnificent professors, with whom I have been able to share this process more closely, Guiliano Sansone and Paolo Landoni. Thank you for having trusted me from the very beginning and for giving me this opportunity. Finally, I am grateful to my friends and family for their unwavering encouragement and belief in me. This experience has enriched my personal and academic growth in ways I could have never imagined, and I am forever grateful for the opportunities and support that have shaped my educational journey. Having said that, thank you all, and I hope that this final master's thesis will be as enjoyable and interesting for you as it has been for me. “De la innovación sabemos dos cosas: no hay innovación sin riesgo y el mayor riesgo es no innovar.” - Xavier Marcet. Table of Contents Lists of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................. 10 1. Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 2. Literature Review ..................................................................................................... 9 2.1. Under the umbrella of entrepreneurship ................................................................ 9 2.1. Under the umbrella of social innovation ............................................................. 11 2.1.1 Grand challenges ........................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Sustainable Development Goals .................................................................... 12 2.1.3 Environmental, Social, and Governance Considerations .............................. 12 2.2. Innovation and its various forms ......................................................................... 13 2.2.1 Closed and Open Innovation ......................................................................... 13 2.2.2 Delving into Open Innovation ....................................................................... 15 2.2.2.1 Open Social Innovation .......................................................................... 18 2.3 Introduction to Incubators .................................................................................... 20 2.3.1. Historic perspective, evolution and services of incubators .......................... 23 2.3.2. Are accelerators the same as Incubators? ..................................................... 25 2.3.2 Types of Incubators .................................................................................. 27 2.3.2.1 Corporate Incubators .............................................................................. 27 2.3.3.2 University Incubators ............................................................................. 29 2.3.3.3 Social Incubators .................................................................................... 31 2.3.3.4 Corporate Social Business Incubators .................................................... 33 2.3.3.5 Virtual Incubators ................................................................................... 35 3. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 38 3.1 Research Overview ............................................................................................... 38 3.2 Database and sample ........................................................................................ 38 3.3 Protocol and interview elaboration .................................................................. 39 3.4 Data collection and interview execution .......................................................... 41 3.5 Secondary Resources ....................................................................................... 43 3.6 Data overview .................................................................................................. 43 4. Results .................................................................................................................... 45 4.1. General Overview of Respondents ...................................................................... 45 4.1.1 CSBI Programs Investigated in this Research ............................................... 45 4.1.2 Startups Investigated in this Research ........................................................... 46 4.2. Analysis ............................................................................................................... 48 4.2.1 ST_1 ............................................................................................................... 48 4.2.2 ST_2 ............................................................................................................... 53 4.2.3 ST_3 ............................................................................................................... 62 4.2.4 ST_4 ............................................................................................................... 67 4.2.5 CBSI_1 .......................................................................................................... 72 4.2.6 CBSI_2 .......................................................................................................... 77 5. Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 85 6. References .............................................................................................................. 88 7. Appendix .................................................................................................................... 93 7.1. Appendix A – Interview Structure for CBSIs ..................................................... 93 7.2. Appendix B – Interview Structure for Startups ................................................... 96 Lists of Figures and Tables Figures Figure 1. Three main entrepreneurial traits. ..................................................................... 9 Figure 2: Main features of Open Innovation programs. ................................................. 17 Figure 3: Wayra incubator website, with its milestones and description. https://www.wayra.es/ .................................................................................................... 28 Figure 4: PoliHub incubator website, with its description. https://polihub.it/ ................ 30 Figure 5: Schematic of the best functioning system according to ST_01 ...................... 49 Figure 6: Main motivation that drive ST_02 to pursue Open Social Innovation programs. ........................................................................................................................................ 54 Figure 7: Program phases according to ST_02. In dark colour the previous, but necessary, phases, and in light, once the programme is underway. ................................................. 58 Figure 8: Competences that make the programs possible according to CBSI_01.......... 74 Figure 9: Phases needed according to CBSI_01. In dark, the pre-phases and in light, the postphase. ..................................................................................................................... 75 Figure 10: Summarization of Phase 2 for CBSI_02. ...................................................... 79 Figure 11: Summarization of the process according to CBSI_02. ................................. 80 6 Last but not least, the incubation topic refers to a supportive environment or program that nurtures early-stage startups or innovative projects, so that the ideas explained above can take root. Incubators provide resources, mentorship, infrastructure, and networking opportunities to help entrepreneurs turn their ideas into viable businesses. A famous example is Y Combinator, a renowned startup incubator, which provides early-stage funding, mentorship, and a three-month accelerator program to selected startups. The program offers guidance on various aspects, including product development, business strategy, and investor pitches, helping startups refine their ideas, build their teams, and attract further investment. These concepts demonstrate the various facets of innovation, from open collaboration and support for early-stage ventures to addressing social challenges with creative solutions. Embracing these concepts can foster a culture of innovation and contribute to positive societal impact. The second section will stablish the key lines on the methodology followed and will go into detail on how the protocol and interview approach has been designed in order to extract as much substantive content as possible and keep it as efficient as possible. The approach followed to contact the startups and CBSI, started with their finding and research. The information gathered with the research had to align with the area of interest of this study and the focus of the protocol. The objective was to identify relevant CSBIs that support social businesses and startups in the target industry or region with strong social impact component. Secondly, it was necessary to find the contact information by visiting the websites of the CSBIs and startups, or professional portals where the contact details of employees and representatives could be found, such as their email addresses, phone number or contact form, to reach out to them. It was also checked if they had specific departments or individuals dedicated to partnerships, incubation, or media relations. Once identified the company and the way to contact it, a personalized and professional message was carried out. In that message, the study and research group were introduced, as well as the purpose of the interview. It was also the time to take the opportunity to express the interest in learning about their experiences and the impact of the developed protocol and how their insights would contribute to the study. 7 In terms of logistical issues, it was tried to offer as much flexibility as possible to accommodate their schedule. And, if a response was not received, after a reasonable interval of time, a follow up and kindly remainder message was sent, to inquire about their interest or availability for the interview, always maintaining a professional approach to try and lead to successful engagements. Privacy and confidentiality were specially secured and it was made clear in the communications that all shared information would be handled with discretion and according to any preferences or requirements the interviewees might have. Some organizations have strict policies or limited resources for external engagements, so the course had to be prepared to adjust or consider alternative sources if needed. Overall, conducting interviews with CSBIs and startups was one of the most powerful and valuable insights that helped enrich the understanding of the phenomenon through their experiences and valuable lessons. Engaging with individuals from various backgrounds and perspectives has provided valuable insights that go beyond what theorists claim. These interviews have served as a reaffirmation of certain theoretical concepts while also shedding light on inconsistencies or threats within the sector that may not have been evident within the theoretical framework alone. By delving into real-world scenarios and hearing first-hand accounts, it has been possible to observe the practical implications of theoretical concepts and identify areas where they may fall short. This process has been instrumental in uncovering nuances and complexities that often evade theoretical analysis. The third section of this master thesis will present a comprehensive analysis of the interviews carried out to active startups and CBSIs based in Spain. The potential benefits and challenges of integrating OSI into the incubation process will be discussed, along with the role of diverse stakeholders, such as entrepreneurs, investors, government entities, and universities. The section will also analyse successful case studies and initiatives that have effectively combined innovation, incubation, and OSI to create positive social impact. It will also explore the key factors influencing the success of such initiatives, including the design of supportive ecosystems, effective collaboration mechanisms, and the measurement of social impact. The section will also examine 8 potential barriers and limitations to the implementation of this approach, as well as strategies to overcome them. Finally, the thesis will conclude by summarizing the key findings and contributions of the research, highlighting the potential of integrating innovation, incubation, and OSI as a pathway to sustainable development. By exploring the interrelationships between incubation and OSI, this master thesis aims to contribute to the growing body of knowledge on effective strategies for addressing social challenges and achieving sustainable development. It seeks to inspire further research and practical action in harnessing the power of collaboration, entrepreneurship, and social innovation to create a more inclusive and sustainable future. 9 2. Literature Review 2.1. Under the umbrella of entrepreneurship One could not begin to address a thesis on such a topic, where innovation and incubators will be present from now on, without talking about the phenomenon of entrepreneurship and the important role that it plays in this ecosystem. Entrepreneurship can be defined as the dynamic process of identifying and nurturing an opportunity to create value through innovation, regardless of the entrepreneur's available resources (both human and capital) or the context in which they operate, whether it is within a new venture or an established organization. [1] The entrepreneurship which will be discussed throughout this thesis, refers to the entrepreneurial activities that are carried out by individuals or that take place within a firm, wherein the firm exhibits an entrepreneurial mindset and actively pursues new opportunities. The main traits this entrepreneurial mindset and activities include, can be seen in Figure 1. [2] Figure 1. Three main entrepreneurial traits. 10 In contrast, a non-entrepreneurial firm, primarily focuses on managing existing operations and makes decisions primarily based on the resources currently under its control. Following Jasna and Bostjan Antoncic literature, entrepreneurship can be classified in four dimensions. The first one is the business venturing, creation of new businesses, related to existing products or markets, and the creation of new units without regard to the level of autonomy or size. Second and third dimensions are the product/service innovativeness and the process/technology innovativeness. And, last but not least, fourth dimension refers to the self-renewal transformation of organizations through a renewal of the key ideas on which they are built. [2] In relation to what pertains more directly to innovation, which is why it deserves special attention, it should be noted that employee involvement in entrepreneurial activities has been proven also to play an important role in innovation performance. Also, it has been demonstrated a positive relationship between corporate entrepreneurship and job satisfaction. This satisfaction of employees, and the presence of entrepreneurship, can play a crucial role in enhancing the long-term viability of a firm, positively influencing its growth trajectory. [3] [4] Consequently, the significance of fostering entrepreneurship for employee satisfaction and facilitating firm growth has been widely acknowledged. Moreover, for cultivating this entrepreneurial behaviour within the organization, it has been found to be particularly convenient to invest in employees so they can foster a sense of self-initiative. [5] In order to extend entrepreneurship within the company and feed on its benefits just shown, Jasna and Bostjan Antoncic, collected a series of recommendations that can be seen on following Table 1. [2] Recommendations in terms of entrepreneurship • Stimulate new demand. • Enter new businesses in new markets. • Find new market niches. • Offer and develop new products. • Redefine the mission of the company. • Redefine industries in which the company will compete in the future. • Reorganize parts of the organization. • Increase the autonomy of their units. 11 • Develop their own technology. • Introduce technological newness and innovations. • Re-assess the business concept. • Improve co-ordination between the units and create a flexible organizational structure to advance business innovation. Table 1 Summary table of recommendations for companies wanting to implement or improve their entrepreneurship. Other key attributes of organizational support that foster entrepreneurship are: providing employees with autonomy, incentives, time flexibility, training opportunities, trust, flexible organizational boundaries, and strong managerial support, commitment, and involvement. [6] In recent years, there has been a notable upswing in entrepreneurial endeavours characterized by their accelerated pace. Presently, tech venture founders find themselves in a more advantageous position, as the cost of bringing their ideas to the market has significantly decreased compared to two decades ago. Additionally, there is a comprehensive ecosystem of support institutions, encompassing incubators, accelerators, legal and financial experts, investors, and marketing and technical consultants, that stands prepared to guide nascent ventures through their initial stages. Consequently, entrepreneurs have a wealth of funding sources at their disposal as they embark on launching their new ventures. [7] In the foreseeable future, the best applications for the discoveries made in fields, such as detection, imaging, and computation, will need entrepreneurial endeavours that involve taking calculated risks. Therefore, investments should be made to enable society to fully embrace the transformative possibilities presented by exponential technologies, integrating and empowering a larger number of individuals to develop digital proficiency as scientists, engineers, business executives, workers, and entrepreneurs. [7] 2.1. Under the umbrella of social innovation In today's rapidly changing world, the need for innovative solutions to address pressing social and environmental challenges has become increasingly evident. As societies grapple with complex issues such as poverty, inequality, environmental preservation and resource depletion, a new approach, called social innovation, has gained prominence. Under the umbrella of social innovation, various frameworks and initiatives, such as the 12 Grand Challenges, Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), and Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) considerations, have emerged to guide efforts towards a more sustainable and inclusive future. This chapter explores these interconnected concepts and their role in shaping the landscape of social innovation. 2.1.1 Grand challenges Grand Challenges refer to large-scale problems that require concerted efforts and innovative solutions. These challenges span various domains, including health, energy, education, and the environment. They demand collaboration across disciplines, sectors, and geographies to tackle systemic issues. Organizations like the National Academy of Engineering in the United States and the Global Grand Challenges Network have identified key Grand Challenges and encourage the development of innovative solutions. Social innovation plays a vital role in addressing these challenges by harnessing collective intelligence, technological advancements, and community engagement to drive meaningful change. [8] [9] 2.1.2 Sustainable Development Goals The Sustainable Development Goals, adopted by the United Nations in 2015, are a set of 17 interconnected goals designed to guide global efforts towards sustainable development by 2030. The SDGs cover a wide range of issues, including poverty eradication, quality education, clean energy, gender equality, and climate action. Social innovation plays a crucial role in achieving these goals by fostering innovative approaches that promote social, economic, and environmental progress. By encouraging collaboration, inclusivity, and a focus on marginalized communities, social innovation helps accelerate progress towards the SDGs and ensures that no one is left behind. [10] 2.1.3 Environmental, Social, and Governance Considerations ESG considerations have gained significant attention in recent years as investors, businesses, and policymakers recognize the importance of integrating environmental and social factors into decision-making processes. ESG encompasses a broad range of issues, including climate change, human rights, labour practices, corporate governance, and community impact. Social innovation provides a framework for organizations to align 13 their strategies and operations with ESG principles, enabling them to create shared value for both shareholders and society. By adopting innovative approaches that address ESG considerations, companies can drive positive change while enhancing their long-term sustainability and resilience. [11] The Grand Challenges, SDGs, and ESG considerations are interconnected and mutually reinforcing. They provide complementary frameworks that guide social innovation efforts towards common objectives. Social innovation projects addressing Grand Challenges often contribute to achieving specific SDGs while integrating ESG considerations. For example, an innovative solution to enhance access to clean water in developing countries can simultaneously address water scarcity (a Grand Challenge), contribute to SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation), and consider the environmental impact and social equity aspects (ESG considerations). Under the umbrella of social innovation, the concepts of Grand Challenges, SDGs, and ESG considerations provide guidance and inspiration for individuals, organizations, and policymakers striving to create a more sustainable and equitable world. By leveraging innovation, collaboration, and interdisciplinary approaches, social innovation offers a powerful means to tackle complex challenges. Embracing these frameworks and working towards their interconnected goals can lead to transformative change with a future where social, economic, and environmental well-being are at the forefront. 2.2. Innovation and its various forms 2.2.1 Closed and Open Innovation Innovation has accompanied all civilizations throughout their existence, as evolutionary as human nature is, and has played an important role to allow getting to where we are. This general idea of innovation refers to the creation, development, and implementation of new ideas, products, or processes that have the potential to create value for individuals, organizations, and society at large. It is a vital driver of economic growth, competitiveness, and progress in many fields, including technology, science, business, and the arts. [12] 14 For the past few years, the innovation model that had been taking place was the one categorized as Closed Innovation. This kind of innovation, also known as traditional or inward-focused innovation, is a model that emphasizes the development of new ideas, products, and services internally within an organization, without much collaboration with external partners or stakeholders. In this approach, companies typically invest heavily in research and development (R&D) to generate new ideas and protect their intellectual property through patents and copyrights. This process is referred to as a "closed" process because projects can only enter in one way at the beginning, and can only exit in one way also, by going into the market. [7] While this model was effective in the past, it has several limitations in today's fast-paced and complex business environment. Firstly, it can be expensive and time-consuming to develop new ideas and bring them to market without external input and feedback. This approach can lead to a lack of customer focus, resulting in products that do not meet the needs or preferences of the target market. Secondly, it can result in a narrow perspective on innovation, limiting the range of ideas and solutions that a company can generate. Finally, it can lead to missed opportunities for collaboration and partnership, which can result in valuable knowledge and resources being left untapped. As a result of these limitations, many companies have shifted towards Open Innovation, which emphasizes the importance of collaboration and sharing knowledge and resources with external partners. By engaging with customers, suppliers, universities, and even competitors, companies can leverage a broader ecosystem of actors to generate new ideas, products, and services that are more likely to meet the needs and preferences of the target market accelerate the innovation process. In other words, it recognizes that innovation can come from anywhere and anyone, and seeks to harness the collective creativity and expertise of a broader ecosystem of actors to generate new ideas, products, and services. Being open is a powerful generative mechanism to stimulate innovation. By embracing Open Innovation, companies can leverage the collective creativity and expertise of a broader ecosystem of actors to enhance their innovation capabilities and stay competitive in a rapidly changing world. [7] This new model of Open Innovation can take many forms, such as crowdsourcing, cocreation, licensing, strategic alliances, and mergers and acquisition, because, projects 15 have the flexibility to be launched from either internal or external technology sources and, additionally, new technology can be introduced into the process at different stages. For this reason, it has been increasingly adopted by organizations of all sizes and sectors as a way to enhance their innovation capabilities and stay competitive. [7] 2.2.2 Delving into Open Innovation As has been shown by a review of the existing literature on the subject, Open Innovation has developed to a widely discussed and implemented innovation practice, where purposive inflows and outflows of knowledge are used to accelerate internal innovation, and expand the markets for external use of innovation, respectively. [13] The nine perspectives Oliver Gassmann identified in his research, help better understand the phenomenon and how to better develop it, which are worth mentioning briefly some of them in this study. [13] In the first place, in relation to the spatial perspective, globalization of innovation has made everything more global and physically close and reachable, with the opportunities and advantages that this presents. Virtual R&D teams and decentralized innovation processes are already taking place, and it is necessary to take them into account to better understand how the field of research is developing. From a structural perspective, value chains are becoming more disaggregated, and drivers of this trend are cost reduction and greater specialization. There’s also the user perspective, which imply users into the innovation process, which allows a better understanding of potential customers. From the supplier perspective, it has been realized that the early integration of suppliers into the innovation process, can significantly increase innovation performance. Leveraging perspective put the focus on existing research competencies (created technology) and intellectual property’s multiplication into new market fields (intellectual property’s external commercialization), which have been fields often neglected, but have high potential to create new revenue streams. Some real examples of Open Innovation in practice are given below to help better understand the phenomenon. 22 the some of the most important incubators, including a global one and two others from Spain and Italy. Definition Incubator Y Combinator is one of the most well-known and prestigious incubators in the world. It offers seed funding, mentorship, and resources to early-stage startups, and has helped launch companies like Airbnb, Dropbox, and Stripe. Y Combinator Digital Magics has been named the best incubator in Italy according to Dealroom. Since 2008, they have been operating as an incubator and accelerator of innovative start-ups and scale-ups offering high-tech content and services. Digital Magics SeedRocket is a startup accelerator and incubator based in Barcelona that focuses on providing mentorship, training, and resources to early-stage tech startups. It has a strong network of investors and has helped launch companies like Chicisimo and Kantox. SeedRocket Table 4: Some of the most important Incubators in Spain and globally. As incubators play a central role in supporting entrepreneurship, policymakers are and should foster their creation. Therefore, more incubators have risen with many aims, types, and models taking place. The different types could be organized according to the governance or tenants, as for example, corporate or university type of incubators. The model instead responds to the way the incubator works and describes how it creates, delivers and captures value, and the rationale behind it. Incubators have also proven their good results as on-incubator technology-based firms have shown better performance in terms of employment and sales growth. This can be due to the fact that Incubators offer services that help to improve the management and industry-specific know-how, which can guarantee improvements as long as all this expertise is harnessed. 23 Moreover, studies have indicated that specialized incubators in a specific number of sectors and services may be more competitive and efficient, as well as they become a concentration of high competences. In this way, and for the present research work, it is of particular interest to focus on those incubators whose field of specialization is oriented towards improving the social impact, the so-called Social Incubators. More precisely, as it will be seen in later chapters, the object of study of this paper will focus on the subgroup of Corporate Social Business Incubators, combining the social with the corporate sphere. 2.3.1. Historic perspective, evolution and services of incubators In this chapter is worth to include some historic perspective of incubators and how they have been evolving, as historical critical review of the evolution of the incubation field can help to learn from the past in order to contribute to the next generation of incubation, in this current era of technological change. [18] Although it is widely acknowledged that incubation models have undergone significant changes over time, there is limited knowledge regarding whether current incubators have adapted their value proposition to encompass the latest incubation paradigms or have continued to operate as originally established. [19] Back in 2012, Bruneel already stated that research had found little or no evidence of incubators contribution to university–industry interaction, innovation activity, or firm performance. Hackett and Dilts, moreover, also suggested that this was a consequence of the recurrent absence of an adequate theoretical lens to consistently analyse incubators activities. That’s why, understanding the evolution of incubators value proposition over recent decades, is crucial for understanding and evaluating their influence on the firms they nurture. [20] As have been highlighted by scholars on the subject, learning from the past is only possible if literature review protocols are adopted, especially systematic reviews of the field, that encompass scholarly research from various disciplines, regardless of their main discipline. They strongly advocate for researchers to undertake thorough and comprehensive literature searches, embrace interdisciplinary approaches, and make concerted efforts to unearth valuable management practices. 24 Prior to the emergence of incubation as a concept, there existed a wealth of knowledge in foundational organization and management science, regarding the efforts of industrial and government laboratories to transform R&D into marketable and viable products. Nevertheless, during that period, theorists were urging researchers to push the boundaries of theoretical research in order to bridge the gap in understanding the processes of R&D and engineering management. And it was, within the context of rapid development of the post-World War II, were the industrial and research laboratories were more focused on the evolving management science. This incipient work on management of research, development and engineering, became known as research-on-research and most of the earliest studies were carried out by social scientists, which included professionals from diverse fields, such as psychologists, sociologists, and economists, many of whom possessed a technical background. [20] [21] [22] The origins of incubators as so, can be traced back to the 1950s, with the establishment of Stanford Research Park, which played a pivotal role in nurturing the growth of Silicon Valley. Another significant development was the establishment of the Industrial Centre of Batavia, in New York, in 1959. At that time, technological innovations and space technologies were widely recognized as major catalysts for the emergence of new hightechnology enterprises. Therefore, the subsequent formation of high-tech clusters, such as Silicon Valley and Boston-Route 128, became renowned as exemplary environments for the flourishing of high-tech startups and the successful establishment of spin-offs from universities and corporations. [23] Since the 1960s, the Palo Alto region housed influential corporate incubators such as Fairchild Semiconductor and Ampex. The presence of such incubators created a fascinating research environment, thanks to the diversity among them and the incubated firms in terms of their success and performance. This heterogeneity offered researchers an excellent opportunity to study and analyse various outcomes within the incubation ecosystem. In the 1970s, the intensifying competition from Japanese firms, led to an effort to establish companies and utilize resources to facilitate their growth. Subsequently, there was a significant increase in the proliferation of incubators, initially concentrated in the United States, but promptly replicated across Europe and Asia, until today, where incubators 25 have become a global phenomenon and are integrated in most developed and developing nations. Regarding the evolution of the services Incubators offer, in the 1980s, they gained widespread popularity mainly as providers of office space, bringing together multiple companies under one roof. However, it was not until the 1990s that incubators extended their value proposition beyond merely offering infrastructure. During this time, they started offering in-house business support services specifically designed to expedite the learning process of new firms. That is why, in broad terms, incubators have been established as those organizations that stimulate new business creation, knowing nowadays, that this stimulation encompasses several dimensions, such as, office space, shared resources and also business support, and access to networks. However, the constant challenges that incubators face and the fact that they are not the only organizations active in the incubation industry, force them to adopt unique differentiation tactics. Thus, “incubator” has become an umbrella term that refers to various initiatives designed to support startups, with an increasingly broad and flexible service concept. Attempts to cluster this multitude of similar terms and the, sometimes, various players offering overlapping services, has led to the differentiation of several typologies of incubators, as it will be discussed in chapter 2.3.2. However, the common denominator of all of these terms or entities is that, in some manner, they exist to play a role to support and harness new technology-based startups. [19] 2.3.2. Are accelerators the same as incubators? The incubation field has expanded to include a wide range of models and a plethora of spin-off terminology that have been used interchangeably, with the emergence of the most recent model—the accelerator. Distinctions exist in terms of criteria and characteristics between incubator and accelerator models, leading to a debate among researchers regarding whether accelerators should be viewed as a new generation of incubators or as a distinct form of entrepreneurial support organization. [24] 26 So, are they the same or do they differ substantially? This sub-section will attempt to answer that question. Incubators, as have been discussed, offer programs that provide support and resources to early-stage start-ups, with the aim of helping them develop their ideas and grow their businesses. They typically provide a wide range of services, such as mentorship, office space, funding, and networking opportunities. Their focus is on creating a supportive environment that allows startups to grow and mature over time. Accelerators, on the other hand, develop programs that are designed to help startups scale their businesses more quickly. They typically offer a more structured program that lasts for a fixed period of time, usually a few months and, during this time, startups receive intensive support, mentoring, and coaching to help them accelerate their growth and achieve specific milestones. While both incubators and accelerators offer support to startups, the main difference is the stage of development of the startups they work with and the intensity and structure of the support they offer. These and other major differences can be seen in the Table 5. Incubators Accelerators Duration of the support From 1 to 5 years From 1 month to 1 year Stage of the idea Early stage Advanced Cohort Never Always Owns equity Never Always External environment Protect Connect Table 5. Suggested differences between Incubators and Accelerators. [25] For this present research work, incubators will be dealt as accelerators, as it is considered that the traits that most differentiate them do not apply nor will impact in the present study. 27 2.3.2 Types of Incubators 2.3.2.1 Corporate Incubators Corporate Incubators are programs that are designed to foster the growth of new businesses, typically within a larger organization. They offer a stable beginning by providing space, expertise and capital in exchange for acquisition rights after two to three years. Their aim is to capture the innovation of freewheeling, not as an investment for immediate financial return, but for help bringing candidates into their R&D pipeline. [26] They are becoming an integral part of start-up ecosystems and can take many different forms, from the more conventional ones, to virtual ones, where the company would provide funding and hands-on expertise, but not lab space, in exchange for some access or rights. [27] Corporate incubators can be run by a wide range of organizations, from tech companies to financial institutions, to government agencies and are managed by specific units of the company in order to discover and support new entrepreneurial opportunities. Some examples of well-known corporate incubators globally and Spain include: [17] Definition Corporate Incubator This program provides support and resources to startups around the world, including access to mentorship, workspace, and funding opportunities. Google for Startups This program is run by the German software company SAP and provides startups with access to mentorship, funding, and other resources to help them grow their businesses. SAP.iO This incubator is part of Telefónica, one of the most important telecommunications company in Spain. Wayra provides startups with mentorship, office space, access to Telefónica's resources and networks and up to €250,000 in funding. Wayra 28 This is a startup accelerator and incubator that is backed by Juan Roig, the founder of Mercadona, a large supermarket chain in Spain. Lanzadera provides startups with mentorship, office space, access to a network of more than 300 mentors and experts and up to €200,000 in funding. Lanzadera TIM WCAP is TIM's open innovation programme for startups and small and medium enterprises. Their mission is to find and integrate, on TIM's digital platforms, innovative solutions from the world of start-ups and SMEs, in line with TIM's business needs, in order to innovate the company's product portfolio and solutions. TIM WCAP Table 6: Short definition of the some of the most important Corporate Incubators. Figure 3: Wayra incubator website, with its milestones and description. [28] One of the main advantages of such entities is that startups can access some of the coveted resources of large companies. However, there are risk situations that may occur and should not be ignored. First, if the parent, the incubator in this case, doesn’t buy the idea from their supported startup, this would diminish the startup’s chances of securing funding, as they have been tested by somebody and that somebody came to a negative 29 conclusion. Secondly, financial risk must be safeguarded, as founders might not get the best price for their company and that would translate into not being able to go independent. Lastly, the biggest downside to Corporate Incubators would be missing out long-term returns and expect immediate results. [26] Lastly, another fundamental issue in such programmes is how to find out the right model to achieve the company’s objectives. For this purpose, it is advisable to study in depth the type and nature of the company, and to see which of the available models is the best suited, if not to make a particular one. According to the literature by Moschner, corporate incubators can be divided into 4 types, depending on the number of participants and the accelerator’s management structure, and from there, after analysing their pros and cons, it is possible to better understand which one best suit the company and the startup seeking support. [27] 2.3.3.2 University Incubators University Incubators are programs that support the growth of startup companies through a university's resources and expertise. These incubators offer a range of resources to startups, such as office space, mentorship, funding, and networking opportunities. University Incubators can also provide access to university research, talent, and technology, which can be valuable resources for start-ups. They hold an important role concerning activities of technology transfer and development of innovation and entrepreneurship, for students and the whole university entrepreneurial ecosystem, central for the so-called third mission of universities. [17] It has been proved how important incubators are as instruments to stimulate innovation and entrepreneurship, facilitating to set up an entrepreneurial ecosystem. For this reason, several universities are establishing their own incubators in order to set up entrepreneurial universities. Some well-known university incubators globally and in Spain include: Definition University Incubator This incubator is part of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and provides startups with access to MIT Startup Exchange 30 resources such as mentorship, workshops, and networking events. This incubator is part of the ESADE Business School, which is located in Barcelona. It provides startups with access to resources such as office space, mentorship, and funding, as well as access to ESADE's extensive network of alumni and industry partners. ESADE Creapolis They work alongside Italian and multinational companies on the lookout for new products, services and business models, backed by their close association with startups. They are known for the smart working environment they offer and they deep tech solutions they help to develop. PoliHub The Incubator of Politecnico di Torino supports the creation and development of high-tech innovative start-ups with high growth potential. I3P Table 7: Short definition of the some of the most important University Incubators. Figure 4: PoliHub incubator website, with its description. [29] 31 As commented above, and therefore needed to be defined, an entrepreneurial ecosystem refers to the complex network of individuals, organizations, and institutions that come together to support entrepreneurship and innovation in a specific region or industry. The concept emphasizes the interdependence of different actors within the ecosystem, and the need for collaboration and coordination to create a supportive environment for entrepreneurs. One of the seminal papers on entrepreneurial ecosystems is "The Rise of the Entrepreneurial Ecosystem" by Daniel Isenberg, which was published in the Harvard Business Review in 2010. In this paper, Isenberg defines an entrepreneurial ecosystem as "the collection of institutions and actors that contribute to the creation and growth of new businesses in a particular geography." [28] Other authors, as Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) project, defines an entrepreneurial ecosystem as "a set of interconnected elements that affect the creation and growth of entrepreneurial firms". [29] Overall, the concept of entrepreneurial ecosystems has become an important lens through which policymakers and practitioners can understand and support entrepreneurship and innovation in their regions and industries. 2.3.3.3 Social Incubators Social Incubators can be defined as those that mainly support start-ups with a significant social impact, or as at G. Sansone stated in 2020, incubators that supports more than 50% of startups that aim to introduce a positive social impact. For Social Incubators, guarantee a positive social impact, study how to measure it properly and train on business ethics and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) are more important services than other incubator types would attend. Therefore, their main focus is on startups that do not pursue only economic objectives, but hybrid organizations that are for‐profit and with a social aim. An example of hybrid organization is the Benefit Corporation, a form of entity created in 2006 to identify for‐profit organizations that primarily achieve social aim. [30] The startups who benefit from the Social Incubator schemes, have a positive impact on 38 3. Methodology 3.1 Research Overview As the main purpose of this thesis research is to examine the advantages and disadvantages of a particular type of incubator known as the Corporate Social Business Incubator (CSBI), the thesis has begun by reviewing the existing literature on CSBI, as well as related topics such as incubators, accelerators, Open Social Innovation, entrepreneurship, and other approaches to corporate venturing and new firm creation models. Thanks to this review it has been possible to obtain comprehensive understanding of the CSBI phenomenon, including their challenges and potential outcomes. In the other hand, to answer the research question: "What are the processes of incubation, obstacles faced by actors, and social and economic outcomes of Corporate Social Business Incubator programs?”, it has become necessary to analyse existing CSBI and their supported startups, to develop a more nuanced understanding of the benefits and drawbacks of CSBI programs. Through this research, which has been done between February 2023 and July 2023, the thesis seeks to provide insights that can help design more effective CSBI programs, with a special focus on Open Social Innovation, to support social and economic development. 3.2 Database and sample As a starting point, a list of potential CBSIs based in Spain was compiled by the Social Innovation Monitor (SIM). This first CBSIs were chosen because they were either run exclusively by a corporation or formed as a partnership program, in which an established incubator assists with logistics, while the main supporter of the teams and startups in the program is a well-established corporation. From this point of departure, work then began on a compilation of more CBSIs and their respective incubated startups, following the same criteria as outlined above. For startups, it was also considered that they had a considerable social impact, as defined at the beginning of the study. This included activities that were not only about reintegration and 39 social support, but also about reducing environmental impact and improving sustainability. The other parameters that were considered when choosing a startup, apart from being under the umbrella of a large corporation and with a defined social and environmental impact, were the origin, or rather the location of operation where they work the most, which was to be Spain for this study, and their current activity, which, whenever feasible, the focus was on prioritizing the more recent cohorts. 3.3 Protocol and interview elaboration The interview protocol used in this study is based on previous research conducted by the SIM team. The original questionnaire was created in Italian by SIM researchers. However, since this study focuses on CSBIs and startups from Spain, the questionnaire was translated into Spanish. The questions were not modified to ensure consistency in the research methodology across different countries. The questionnaire is divided into four sections for both the CBSI version (located in Appendix A of this thesis) and the Startup version (located in Appendix B of this thesis). PART A The first part of the interview is similar for both respondents and deals with the introductory topics such as formal definitions of “Open Innovation” and “Open Social Innovation” and whether if they knew definitions before and if the incubation program was supporting Open Social Innovation or not. PART B Part B of the questionnaire aims to gather information regarding the expectations of the parties involved in Open Social Innovation programs. It seeks to understand the reasons behind their participation or creation of such programs, the competencies that have enabled their involvement, and the methods employed by the programs to evaluate their economic and social impact. Some of the questions asked for corporation are: 40 B1. What is the main reason why corporations decide to start Open Social Innovation projects through Corporate Incubation programs? B3. What economic results have you achieved or do you expect to achieve from Open Social Innovation? And for startups: B1. What is the main reason why the founders of startups decide to participate in Open Social Innovation projects through Corporate Incubation programs? B3. What are the services offered by Open Social Innovation through Corporate Incubation programs to improve the economic impact of the startup's business? PART C The third part of the questionnaire, focuses more on obtaining detailed information regarding the Open Social Innovation program. It aims to understand the competencies that are developed during the program, the primary guidelines for evaluating its economic and social impact, and the employees or positions that are prominently involved in the program. Some of the questions asked for corporation are: C4. What are the main economic and social guidelines and objectives you pursue? C5. Do Open Social Innovation activities and processes occur continuously or only at certain stages in the life cycle of a product/service? C6. Can you describe the best example of Open Social Innovation you have initiated? And for startups: C4. What are the main economic and social guidelines and objectives you pursue in the Open Social Innovation process? C5. Are Open Social Innovation programs undertaken with a single corporate, or can you decide later to collaborate with other corporations? 41 PART D This last part, is designed to shed light on the external relationships involved in the Open Social Innovation program. It seeks to understand which organizations are involved, the methods used by the parties to establish contact, the selection process for collaborating with another company, and the nature of the agreements that facilitate collaboration. Additionally, Part D asks about the duration and finalization of the collaboration for both parties, as well as the main obstacles encountered during the interaction. Some of the questions asked for corporation are: D3. How do you collaborate with these stakeholders? E.g. through formal or informal agreements? D4. What kind of activities can these actors perform for Open Social Innovation? D5. What are the main obstacles in working with such actors? And for startups: D2. Did the corporate contact you or did you propose yourself? D3. How is the corporate company to collaborate with selected? D4. How do you collaborate with the corporate company? For example, through formal agreement? D5. Is/was the incubated startup included in a project with other incubated startups in the Open Social Innovation programs? 3.4 Data collection and interview execution Format As explained in the previous section, the format of the standardized interview was used for all the companies studied and the same questions were asked, maintaining the same order, to all the participants. Always applying the two versions, depending on whether it was a startup or CBSI, given that they are on opposite ends of the incubation process. 42 The proposed time for the interviews was around 30 minutes, and was conducted remotely, given the considerable physical distance between some of the companies interviewed, and to facilitate the recording and transcription of the information. Execution Once the time of the meeting was agreed, the call is initiated and the participants were notified that the information obtained during the interviews would be treated anonymously and in compliance with the regulations for the processing of personal data under Article 13 of EU Regulation 679/2016. From there, the interview protocol was followed, question by question, trying to condense the information in order to make it comfortable and agile for the interviewees. Targets and limitations In terms of targets, the interview aimed to gather information and insights from individuals or groups of individuals who have relevant knowledge and or experience related to this specific research topic. This helped answer the research questions and provide a deeper understanding of the topic under investigation. On the other hand, as far as the limitations are concerned, a potential drawback of using structured interviews for data collection is the limited number of respondents, which may not provide a comprehensive and accurate representation of the entire population being studied. And, as on many other occasions, time was also a limiting factor. It was sometimes difficult to get complete and extensive answers to all the sections in the established 30 minutes. On the other hand, by narrowing it down and trying to keep it to a moderateshort time, it was possible to get a response from some companies, which if they had not had a time limiting factor, they might not even have agreed to respond. Usage The data obtained from the interviews was subjected to qualitative analysis to construct the Results section, as will be seen later in chapter 4. 43 3.5 Secondary Resources Beyond the interviews, secondary information taken from the internet and the company’s websites has also been considered. The internet offers a wide variety of secondary information sources, such as academic journals, government reports, case studies and news outlets, among others, which were useful to supplement primary research findings through the interview. This allowed to provide context to research results, and validate research conclusions. Additionally, the quickly and efficient access to information through internet has allowed to conduct the research on a larger scale and more comprehensively. Therefore, this secondary information has also been an essential tool for enriching research and obtaining a more complete understanding of the topic being studied. As an example of some of these secondary resources, there are press reports that corroborate the success stories mentioned in the interviews and their numerous mentions and awards received throughout their trajectory. For example, the collaboration between a notorious and leading Spanish beer brand, with the startup ST_2 and some additional material on the programmes offered by the corporate incubators, with more enriching level of detail. 3.6 Data overview In order to facilitate the interpretation of the data collected and the interviews conducted, all relevant information from the companies interviewed is presented in Table 11 below. The acronym for startups will be ST_# and, similarly with CSBIs, they will be denoted by CSBI_#. Type Acronym Date of the interview Sector Position of the interviewees Corporate Business Incubator CBSI_1 24/04/2023 Energy Open Innovation Specialist 44 Type Acronym Date of the interview Sector Position of the interviewees Incubated Startup ST_1 02/05/2023 Logistics CEO and founder Incubated Startup ST_2 09/05/2023 Digitalisation CEO and founder Corporate Business Incubator CBSI_2 06/06/2023 Consulting Open Innovation Specialist Incubated Startup ST_3 30/06/2023 Health care Biomedical Engineer Incubated Startup ST_4 19/07/2023 Waste revalorisation Managing director Table 11: Key information from each of the interviews In accordance with the research protocol developed in the preceding stage, all interviews were conducted using the extended version of it. Each interview was held virtually through a digital meeting platform and meticulously recorded for accurate documentation. An attempt was made to keep the interview as short as possible within the promised 30 minutes, but if the interviewee wanted to give more information or expand on his or her answers, he or she was not cut off. 45 4. Results 4.1. General Overview of Respondents For this research, contact was stablished with numerous companies, all of which were reviewed individually to ensure that they met the requirements of the study. From the 48 companies contacted, although some of them showed interest in the study and responded to the message, only 6 of them were the ones that agreed to participate in the research. 4.1.1 CSBI Programs Investigated in this Research CSBI_1: This corporate is one of the largest energy corporations in Spain, primarily engaged in the business of sustainable infrastructure development and renewable energy solutions. It has over 45.000 employees worldwide from over 140 nationalities. With its headquarters in Spain, the company operates in various sectors, including energy, infrastructure, water, and services. [32] As a corporation, it is involved in the development, construction, and operation of renewable energy projects such as wind farms, solar power plants, and hydroelectric installations. They also participate in the construction and management of sustainable infrastructure projects, including roads, bridges, airports, and urban developments. Their water division specializes in water treatment and desalination, while its services division offers facility management and other related services. Additionally, it has been stablished an incubator within the company to foster innovation and support the growth of startups and entrepreneurial ventures. They likely focus on supporting startups in the fields of sustainable technologies, clean energy, and infrastructure solutions, aligning with the company's core areas of expertise and interest. By operating as both a corporation and an incubator, this company aims to drive positive change and contribute to the transition towards a more sustainable and environmentally conscious future. CSBI_2: The second corporate is one of the largest consulting firms in the world and provides a wide range of services in strategy, consulting, digital, technology, and 46 operations. The company operates across various industries, including technology, financial services, healthcare, communications, and more. Their headquarters are in Dublin, Ireland. As a corporation, they offer consulting services to help organizations improve their performance, achieve operational efficiency, and navigate digital transformations. They work closely with clients to identify opportunities, develop strategies, and implement innovative solutions to enhance their business outcomes. In addition, the firm operates an incubator program to support and nurture startups and early-stage companies. They focus on collaborating with innovative startups in emerging technology fields such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, data analytics, and cybersecurity. Through this incubator, they aim to foster innovation, develop strategic partnerships, and drive digital transformation for its clients. The company's incubator program typically offers startups access to their global network, expertise, and industry insights. It may provide mentorship, funding, and guidance in areas like product development, market access, and scaling operations. By supporting startups, they also contribute to its own ecosystem of innovation and help clients stay at the forefront of technological advancements. Overall, this firm combines its role as a leading global corporation with its incubator program to drive innovation, create new business opportunities, and assist both established companies and startups in navigating the challenges and opportunities of the digital era. 4.1.2 Startups Investigated in this Research ST_1: This startup is about a team of 20-25 employees, who are operating in the logistic sector. Since 2018, they have been working to ensure that no stage of the delivery process of the products is beyond control. [33] They are one of the best digital ecosystems in which to centralize and automate all the logistics of a company. The provide the visibility of the tracking through a simple and flexible platform that connects the brand with the customer and allows to make datadriven business decisions in the simplest and most secure way. 47 They know that building a great brand experience is essential to keep the customers, and claim there is one phase in the value chain that can put everything at risk: the moment of shipment. For that, they offer the control and visibility needed to manage the supply chain efficiently and deliver unbeatable service. ST_2: This startup has a team of 10-15 employees, which drive companies to have a sustainable lifestyle. They track activities such as public transport use, physical activity or recycling and calculate the carbon footprint reduction of the employees on a daily basis. They motivate the employees through challenges, in which employees compete in different gamification mechanics such as rankings, levels or challenges and encourage a sustainable and healthy lifestyle by boosting the feeling of belonging to the company. [34] Moreover, they encourage sustainability through rewards with double positive impact. They motivate sustainable actions with incentives, such as sustainable fashion products, technology, leisure activities or social impact. Also promote Circular Economy and involve employees in the Corporate Social Responsibility strategy. All this track of emission reductions achieved, sustainable kilometres travelled and more, can be reported in the company's Sustainability Report. ST_3: Awarded as one of the top 50 global startups in 2023 and selected as one of the most disruptive ideas or projects by the Mobile World Congress in 2021, this third startup offers a remote monitoring solution for oncologic patients. Their telemonitoring medical device improves patient care, simplifies the work of caregivers and collects new data for researchers. ST_4: An initiative driven to lead the recycling of components from renewable installations, one of the biggest challenges in the medium and long term for the sector. The initial objective is to recover the components of wind turbine blades, which are mostly glass and carbon fibres and resins for reuse in sectors such as energy, aerospace, automotive, textiles, chemicals and construction. 54 corporations, like the ones we work with, through a normal process, it’s very complicated, but through Innovation areas that are more predisposed”. Figure 6: Main motivations that drive ST_02 to pursue Open Social Innovation programs. Similarly, as ST_01 commented, some programmes are not entirely honest and do not present a real need, so they end up being a waste of time. “I think we've had both kinds of things happen to us. Both companies and really good programmes, with which we've done projects and, in fact, we continue to maintain a very good relationship and take more projects forward. And others, on the other hand, it has been a long process of presenting, of making “pitch”, and in the end you see that it's just to take a photo and it stays there and has no more transcendence. They don't have that idea of day-to-day things, and they come because they've been told, that's detrimental”. ST_02 highlighted a set of skills and competences that enabled these processes and activities such as: curiosity, humility, willingness, openness to try things, communication and creativity. Regarding what are the services that Open Social Innovation offers and how do they help to improve economic impact, it was noted what it had been previously said about getting the possibility of making yourself known and getting new clients. However, the answer was complemented: 55 “Talking about the economic impact is like simplifying it too much, because in reality, prior to that, there is the whole relationship, support and reputational part that working with companies of this type offers. It is almost more valuable than the euros because, for example, it is now easier for us to generate interest in them and to be able to set a project in motion, thanks to the fact that we have these guarantees. Today, for example, we have already worked some companies and we have already worked on certain legal issues, which gives us a lot of confidence. I think it's necessary to start with Open Innovation, because they're more willing to listen to you and to do things. And from there, then go to a more commercial strategy.” What it was highlighted about this section is that, economic interest, it's like the third derivative almost, but more important steps come before. In the end that's what happens, but prior to that, there are also more points, as a pre-power breeding ground. On the other hand, when asking what are the services that Open Social Innovation offers and how do they help to improve social impact, the issue of image and appearance came up again. “It's like two sides of the same coin. For better and for worse, many companies see it almost more as a communication action than as something that is really worthwhile. So, if you see it as something that you really want to do in the medium to long term, then I think that's is very good, as different areas that were before on its own, start working together. From the top management and from a strategic point of view, we are seeing that these kinds of issues related to people, business and also innovation and technology, make much more sense if they are seen as a whole. […] Not a short term for taking a photo, but because you really believe in this type of project, and that it does have a positive impact. Not first and foremost on the company, but also on society”. When asking about the balance between social and economic results, the answer was similar to the previous startup interviewed, about how the current situation is: “I think that the most important ones are usually the economic ones. It is true that the social ones are considered, but often these companies open up to this type of project when 56 they are doing well. […] In fact, with the impact of COVID-19, and with the war in Ukraine, we have seen several companies had cut their programs or challenges. So that's where you can see what they really prioritize”. However, a very good observation was made on how the issue should be approached and how it should be dealt with: “I think that, you have to be very clear about what your mission is, so that you don't end up doing, any project just to sell or generate income. […] What happens otherwise is that, if you just go for the economic side and forget about your mission, then you'll stop being what you want to be. But it also happens the other way around, if you only focus on the social part, and you don't prioritise the other, maybe you end up becoming an NGO or an association that has to live on donations or on the voluntary work. Then that's not sustainable over time. Maybe people can be good or help you at a given moment, but you can't make it recurrent, or maintain it over time. So, I think they are of equal importance”. Regarding the metrics, and when to measure them the interviewee commented on the current situation with respect to what the ideal situation would be like: “The reality and what we have been doing so far is measuring during and after the program. Before it would be great, and it would be the right thing to do, but we have always been putting out fires. In terms of starting up projects in the corporations, we want to take an initial survey, to collect this baseline information and then be able to compare. But up to this point we haven't been doing that, we've been focusing on getting the project off the ground”. Another important observation that was made regarding metrics, was the evolving and rapidly changing environment in which these programs are undertaken and how this was to be translated into the measurement process.: “These are projects that you don't just do it at the beginning, and then it works, but you often do it as it's being executed. Being in an innovative startup, you are learning and modifying a lot, so those metrics, weather when the project is closed, or during the time 57 when you are issuing reports that you are asked for, have also to adapt and be helpful to report”. What they mostly monitored is the reduced CO2 footprint, which is also related to the sustainable kilometres travelled, recycling actions carried out or reduced plastics, for example. On the social side, including people, properly speaking, there were two types of metrics. Firstly, the number of downloads and active users applying these good actions, including also some indicators of awareness and knowledge of sustainability issues. And in the other hand, all that has to do with the social impact that the prizes obtained could provide: “What we do is collaborate with many brands that also have a positive impact portion. For example, a brand of trainers that works with people with disabilities or clothes made from recycled organic materials. We are looking for the rewards part of the project, to also have that positive impact. With corporations, another thing that we also do a lot is that employees, with the points they have earned, apart from the rewards, they can exchange them for food kilos to donate. Or, in the case of a pet food company, the employees themselves can also donate their points so that the company gives cans of food to animal shelters. We are looking for that metric, not only in the direct action of the user, but also with the consequences. […] In this way, it kind of closes the circle completely”. Entering in the second section, the questions about time duration and phases of the process were described as follows: “The duration, on average, is half a year. There are some shorter, like 3-4 months, but it's also true that sometimes they want to make them shorter, but end up getting longer. So, I would say, on average, six months. It also depends on the programme. When it's a hackathon, it lasts a weekend and from there, what they get are ideas. But if it's a programme where they really want to do a pilot and test the product or service you offer, that's at least six months. Regarding the process, it starts with the set out and definition of the challenges and what the corporation needs. Then they launch a call for proposals, and normally they hire a 58 consultancy firm, so they do the scouting for startups to find out that such company has opened a process. Then there is a process of selection, in which a match is made between the startups and the needs of the client. There is usually a process in which you first send a form and then those that are selected, can reach the final. Next, there are often some rounds of half speed dating, where you meet for 15 minutes with people from the company who are in charge of that area. Once these filters have been applied, it comes the phase of the pitch session, so that everyone can hear your proposal at the same time in five minutes. From there, they select the winners, who are the ones who will carry out the challenge. Figure 7: Program phases according to ST_02. In dark colour the previous, but necessary, phases, and in light, once the programme is underway. These are the stages of Open Innovation. Open because any startup can present its proposal. But, currently, we are starting to seeing that, although this is the most popular path, sometimes the company itself or the consultancy firm is the one that detects opportunities, and then call to ask you participate in the challenge. This is another formula that I think happens a lot in architecture. There are open competitions where anyone can apply, or closed ones, like the construction of a big football pitch, where the competition is presented to four defined studios that are very important, and they have to see who gets it. Moving back to main process, once the startups that are going to take part in the challenge are selected, there is a phase of defining what is going to be done and how it is going to be done. You define the objectives you want to achieve, and that closes the previous phase of planning. This phase is very important because it has to be very clear how long 59 the project is going to last, what scope it wants to have and to ensure that both parties are aligned. In other words, neither the company has too high expectations, nor the other way around, where the startup does not know how long it will take or what resources or budget it has… It's important that once this has been defined, there needs to be a bit of open space, because in innovation you never know. The startup then works on a development and, you can either finish a beta testing, or maybe do a beta testing, and then you do a larger scale implementation. Now it is also important not to just think about doing a pilot and that's it, but also if that pilot makes sense on a larger scale”. As far as the competences developed are concerned, the interviewee highlighted: “Once you start working with the corporate, apart from the technical skills, soft skills are very important. Working on empathy, understanding what they want, what the client needs. Knowing how to manage a meeting, understanding each other's interests. Because maybe you go with your idea and your product, with a plan, but what you have to do is to really understand them, see how they work, what they need or what you know, and adapt to that. On the other hand, for you as startup you learn […] how to sell innovation. You are a company that needs to make it replicable for other types of customers. […] It is very important to have those competences, align expectations and achieve the match. That is achieved through good communication, transparency, coherence and that we are all on the same page. Those types of competences, intuition, communication, empathy, etc., are also key in this field”. Regarding the participation and number of employees participating in the program the interviewee explained the evolution of so: “In our case, at the beginning, as there weren't many of us, we all went to everything, to see what the technician thought or to see the communication strategy…. Now, we have evolved, and it’s normally me the one that it’s involved. If I don't make it to some of the projects, I pass them on to another colleague, who plays the role of understanding the project and the opportunities and possibilities that exist in doing it. Then, once the 60 project has been defined and gets underway, that's when the other people come in as well. In our side, there is an owner who is the one that leads and establishes communications with the outside companies. In companies, it is usually a business owner who, depending on the area you are working with, is responsible within the company for driving the project forward. There is also usually someone else from innovation, who can be either internal innovation or can be an external consultant or sometimes both, and they act as facilitators so that both parties speak the same “language” and have all the resources they need. They set up the game board very well so that things happen”. Regarding the guidelines and objectives, it was remarked the importance of having the rules and bases very clear. That being super-aligned was the most important thing before starting to work and taking on the project, and that it was almost more important than the project itself. Then, as was to be expected, like any company when it sells a project, they looked for it to be profitable, for the price to be appropriate, and for the expectations and scope to be well-defined by both parties. The environmental objectives were set based on tables and data, according to the number of participants expected. Dealing with the last block of the interview, it was mentioned all the collaboration with other entities and actors involved. Depending on the program and the degree of maturity they were looking for different actors came in the way: “For example, in universities, what I have often seen is that it is more with students, and it is done to get ideas. Above all, to detect profiles and then offer them internships. In universities also, but with research groups, it tends to be for rarer and more specific cases. They tend to do more DeepTech, more complex or more scientific projects. For example, in sectors like medicine or very advanced engineering, it might be more that way”. When asked whether they applied to the process themselves, or whether they were approached by the incubator, the answer was very enlightening: 61 “Well, it depends on the moment. At the beginning, when nobody knows you, you are the one who applies. However, now there are companies or consultancy firms that offer us programmes and we take a look to see if we can send the application. We prioritize that the challenge make sense and, because we are a development company, that we have the flexibility and customization we need. More and more, we try to avoid doing very adhoc projects, which only serve that company. We also try to make sure that the culture and the people we are going to talk to are aligned. That we are comfortable. Because in the end, it is something for both parties, and even if they are the ones who pay, we are not going to be at any price”. They agreed, as did the first startup interviewed that, they usually have a formal framework agreement, and when there isn't one, it's problematic. Regarding working with other startups at the same time it was said: “Usually, they do several challenges in parallel, and, for each challenge, there is only one startup. And that’s the thing about startups, even if we're in different sectors, there's a lot of common ground that we do help each other a lot in terms of sales or web or patents, for example”. Regarding the main pitfalls of working with corporate incubators, those that have already been discussed above, were picked up: avoiding the programs that are a waste of time, avoiding Ad Hoc work and the ones that take advantage of the relationship. Lastly, regarding the when does the collaboration ends, they offered a new point of view, compared to the previous startup: “The idea is that it doesn't end. The idea is that you can generate a medium to long term relationship. Starting with the challenge of Open Innovation, and then take away little by little the figure of testing and trying things out, and start to work on it. That a partner or supplier relationship is established directly. This is the ideal, not to do projects just for the sake of it, but to do projects that are then consolidated and have recurrence. The experiment ends but, if it's been successful, then the idea is to scale it up. The programme ends and the innovation area or the consultancy firm is out of the way. But 62 you already have direct contact with the business unit you are helping, you have a direct relationship, and you are executing more projects”. 4.2.3 ST_3 During the third interview carried out, the case of knowing the first definition of Open Innovation, but not the second typology of social subtype, was repeated: “I know what open innovation is, so I knew about it. It's a fairly classic and well-known concept. I even taught some subjects on innovation and innovation management. So, it was a concept that I already knew about during my degree. The concept of open social innovation, on the other hand, I didn't know it. […] However, almost all the innovation that I have been able to do from a professional point of view, has been social, because of the health component. But I didn't know about it before coming here”. The interviewee absolutely agreed that the programmes in which he had participated were aligned with the Open Social Innovation, sharing ideas such as: “From the very foundations of the collaborations, we understood what the concept of open innovation and product co-creation was. It was something that we also extended to, not only the collaboration that we could have with pharmaceutical companies, but also, for example, with hospitals. This concept of cooperation with users and co-creation with medical teams. Today, at the Government Department of Health, we also understand this model and we believe that this is what we have to do today because it will be the future”. Regarding the main motivation to participate in such programs, it was interesting how the medical perspective played an important role, while it could be also extrapolated to many other areas: “The medical sector, (as many others sectors) seeks for the implementation and consolidation of a product in the market. For doing so, you need to have what we call capillarity at the level of the user, that is, to know the doctor, to have a good relationship with the head unit, the hospital manager, the people in contact with the Regional Health Service… In the end, all this is impossible for a startup to develop, because you don't 63 have the human strength to have a representative in each of the hospitals in each of the services. On the other hand, pharmaceutical companies have all these contacts and have therefore, a series of knowledge, not only at the level of who is who, but also and more important, how and when to call”. Moving on to the next question, the competences that allowed the startup to participate in those programs were, according to the interviewee, the agility and the speed at which the startup moves. This is a great advantage that a startup offers to a big company. “In the end, a start-up, a small company, an emerging company, has a brutal capacity to adapt to the needs of the environment. That is to say, today a need is detected, it is analysed, and tomorrow or this very afternoon we can be working on the development of a functionality of the solution. Especially for us who are software. […] Software can be developed very easily, it is iterated very quickly and I think that this agility and speed is key”. In highlighting the services offered by the CBSI, following aspects came to light. Firstly, and as already said, the how and when to contact, which makes that what you are going to do, is more likely to hit the target. Secondly, it was also noted the support given on a financial level, as it is common to get some economic help or funding in this partnerships: “What a startup also needs in the end, is capital, because it is just starting out and is increasingly in need of funding. These partnerships help, not only to raise capital, but also to demonstrate to investors that the company can generate a "reimbursement". That it can generate a business around the product model it is developing”. When asking which results were more important, economic or socials, the interviewee responded: “In the end, it is difficult to quantify or determine if there was an analytical and scientific indicator that it gave a positive or a non-positive response, but I think that, in the end, the benefits go hand in hand. The economic benefits in the pharmaceutical industry in general, are related to the series of collaborations with startups and can therefore have better access to doctors. This can 70 As objectives and guidelines is concerned, although already treated a little previously, it was added: “The objectives that were mentioned before are to create an economically solvent solution so that the revaluation and recycling can be carried out, but also to note as an objective and as a milestone to open the way and improve the standardization of the regulations in this sector and that there is an increase and opening up in the culture of regularization. By 2025, a legal treaty is expected to stop allowing the disposal of wind turbine blades in any way and in non-specialized plants. And such regulation would not have been possible, or would not be possible at this time, if it had not been for the project and all the work and exploration that has been carried out”. Entering the last block of the interview, the actors involved and their role were also explained in good detail: “The actors involved have been specially research groups and technology centres, where there are approved laboratories that are deciding the properties of these materials. There are also in-house technologies where tests are carried out to see how the material behaves, how it dilutes, how resins can be released by thermal processes... All these are the companies we are working with on a daily basis. And also, in terms of the value chain, you talk to many companies to say that I will foreseeably have these materials with this content and this composition. How can they introduce it into their production processes? Car manufacturers, or construction, panels, reinforced resins, ceramics... of all kinds”. It was also affirmed, once again, that all the agreements made with said actors were always carried out within a formal agreement: “Whenever we do collaborations, they are arbitrated and are confidentiality agreements, structured with NDA's for example. Whenever we send a sample to be analysed, we sign this type of document. And, to add more on this point, as commented in a press release that came out recently, we have signed an agreement with a team that can dismantle a wind farm and sell one blade to Italy or all three, or sell the entire generator to Algeria… This agreement 71 stipulates that, what they cannot reuse, they will send it to our recycling plant. These are companies and destinations with which we like to strengthen ourselves. It also happens to us with other suppliers of materials, for example, a company which makes some reinforced resins, we give them the material, which is very demanding, and with certain characteristics they could incorporate it into their resins. And to say that we have an agreement with them also reinforces us. Not only do we grow, we make ourselves stronger, but we make that environment of companies that want our recycled components strong. And it is also essential”. Regarding the process and its duration, although it is true that it varied a little from the calendars heard so far, given the nature and together with the differences observed in the phases of the project, the duration of the collaboration was defined as follows: “The company was born at the beginning of 2022. We have been working for more than a year and the plant will be operating in autumn 2024. The life expectancy is around 9/10 years with this design. Somehow, what we can guarantee now is that we have 10 years of operation. The blade market is not very well known, what is coming and what is not it’s kind of unpredictable, and there are not many studies or many hypotheses. But it is known that new wind turbines are going to be installed in Spain, more efficient, more powerful and with less maintenance and that they are going to provide many blades as waste, but we do not know the rhythm either. Therefore, there are many unknowns, but there is a 10-year work horizon that seems viable for ST_04 as it is conformed now. ST_04 will continue, but maybe it has drifted to other features because the market has drifted, or because we are somehow more effective”. Before finishing, it was north noting, which and how did they face the difficulties of undertaking projects of this magnitude, where the correct environmental objectives are not always the most economically profitable. How to deal with this environmental inconsistency that manifests itself so many times? “Yes, the difficulties of reconciling the economic with the sustainable do exist, and they are a big challenge in fact. As a particular example, it could be explained how for each wind turbine blade, there is 45% fiberglass and 5% carbon fibre. While for environmental purposes it would be very necessary and convenient to recycle this 45% of glass fibre, economically it is a very cheap fibre and not very profitable to recycle, 72 while the 5% of carbon fibre it is economically very profitable. So, it has to be a combination. This interplay between the economic and the sustainable, which is a challenge, is needed and a coherence between both, that sometimes is not present at the beginning, is sought. It should also be noted that, for this type of initiative and all those related to recycling to go ahead, aid and support from the government or other institutions are necessary. It is well known that it is usually more efficient and cheaper to obtain the raw material, but we also know today that those should not be the only criterion. Although recycled material is more expensive in monetary terms, there are other factors beyond price that would make the world more unsustainable if it were not for recycling”. All in all, a very revealing interview by a great professional and knowledgeable in the field, which provided really useful insights and expertise. 4.2.5 CBSI_1 Regarding the first interviewed CBSI, they highlighted also not being familiar with the differentiation between open innovation and open social innovation, but given the company's mission and values, they had naturally directed open innovation towards the environmental sector: “We have always assumed that value proposition in the market, of being sustainable in all our activities, and this also reinforces the new developments and new trends generated by startups. And yes, it's true that we focus on sustainability. In fact, if you look at our latest challenges posted on our website, you'll notice that there are various challenges with a strong focus on sustainability. One is measuring the carbon footprint, and also focusing on carbon capture and footprint reduction. In 2018, we launched a well-known challenge, which involved the origin guarantees for renewable energy generation. So, it's true that we have always had a focus on sustainability, but not with such a pronounced social focus." As motivations for why are they interested in promoting programs like theirs, they highlighted: "There have always been innovative companies with a strong technological component, but there wasn't a way to approach them to capture value 73 through projects". Depending on their needs and the specific case, they adapt the challenges they launch. For example, if the approach is towards a new market, they seek less mature startups. But, if they want to explore a market or a service that is not their core business and they want to learn about, they choose more mature startups. Therefore, it's worth noting how "we also handle the definition of challenges, and it's crucial to determine the type of startups we will approach. It depends a lot on how the challenge is defined, where the challenge is set, and what the end goal is." Ultimately, the underlying motivation behind everything they promote is: "Our innovation goal is not to merely test technology but rather to co-develop new products and services for the company." As competencies worth highlighting that have allowed them to carry out these activities and programs, the interviewee emphasized: "One of the core values of our company as a corporation, is the fact that we strive to care for the planet and its resources. Beyond that overarching mission, what we have found is that there is a strong willingness among our colleagues to embrace innovation. [...] We heavily rely on our colleagues, who often possess the technical expertise, and ultimately, they are the ones who have to drive these innovative projects forward with us. Therefore, the fact that colleagues from various departments are always willing to collaborate and that the initiative is supported by the top management is crucial." In addition, he made it known how well positioned the company was and how this helps in the sector, together with the support of the board of directors, which is involved in the innovation processes and is aware of, as well as supporting, all these initiatives. 74 Figure 8: Competences that make the programs possible according to CBSI_01 In terms of expected results and services offered to the startups, it was highlighted that, in general, it is more of a support to explore a business, to work with clients and to provide them with commercial advice, rather than the generation of a business per se, with a commercial development that can directly generate revenue. Regarding metrics and evaluation process, the problem, risk or threat of Vanity KPI's was introduced: “The standards and generals would be the number of startups incubated, programs launched, people involved… but in the end, this are what is known as Vanity KPIs (number of projects presented, related people and clients…). More than KPI's, I find it more interesting to highlight what types of agreements are reached, if they are protected, if they have a powerful partnership... Since vanity KPI's do not define the impact of a program. We are going to have now the focus on partnerships and framework agreements achieved, as metrics”. The phases of the project were mainly differentiated into a pre-definition phase and a post-implementation phase: 75 Figure 9: Phases needed according to CBSI_01. In dark, the pre-phases and in light, the postphase. “The program, beyond when the challenge starts, has a previous work definition […] and there are several processes for the definition of these challenges, one of them is the support in consultants to do the job landing the challenges. It must be also considered that sometimes there were previously defined challenges and we incorporated them into the program […]. Besides, challenges to be dealt in Open Innovation fall within a more generic framework, so they can be already defined by the team and then sent to you directly. In both cases, you have to sit down and define exactly what you are looking for, because you’ll look for different startups within what is the entire ecosystem”. Then, once the challenge is published on the platform, there is a month and a half/two months, in which it is open, and the scouting tasks are done. Then, the evaluation phase starts, which can take a month. The evaluation phase ends with a Selection Day event, which consists on an invitation where all the pre-selected startups come, so that the teams get to know each other and the entire organization has visibility of the program. It could be about 15 days of one-to-one meetings to prepare the proposals, because these proposals are going to be seen by the steering committee. From there, the winners start the 6 months program, which was 3 months in the past, but was realized it was too short. At the end of the program, the Demo Day arrives, and the results are presented. After that, one could add that: “After those 6 months you enter phases that could be, pilot extension, if the startup needs more financing, or business integration, it depends on each project. Fundamentally, all 76 in all, the whole package of the program lasts 6 months of execution of the project and 34 months of preparation. A total of 10 months, more or less”. Regarding the participation and people involved in the teams, it was noted the participation of technical profiles in each of the business units involved, together with the support and advice of professionals focused on innovation and its strategies: “We work with people who do not work within innovation schemes, and many times they are technicians who do not know how to deliver messages, and that is why we are there. […] We are there for support, because they are technical profiles from different business areas, based on their day to day tasks”. Later on, the interviewee listed some of the most successful cases as examples of good practice. This was followed by the last block of the interview in which the role of the different actors involved was highlighted. “Over the years we have worked with different innovation consultancies. There is also a process of culture assimilation and incorporation of lessons learned, and in the end, you learn and adapt to the needs of the organization. The support of consultants, even accelerators, is fine, especially at the beginning. But then in the end, especially with accelerators, unless they're specifically from your industry, it's hard to get a certain fit. […] Being sectoral, it brings us more value. As a generic framework it's fine, but then obviously you have to bring it, assimilate it and adapt it to your processes, culture, sector… and it's not easy, and I'm aware”. Finally, as mentioned earlier in the interview, information was shared on the agreements in place, which were all formal, but with great flexibility in terms of intellectual property: “In our program, the company does not reserve any intellectual property, it belongs to the startup. It is done this way because by being lax, you are flexible regarding what you are going to ask the startup for, and it generates fewer problems. Especially for more mature startups, which have investors and have to justify. And also, to be agile, not only in execution, but in the negotiation or talent capture phases”. And more detail was also provided on how the relationship with the incubated startup ends: 77 “Once the project is finished, we are also usually asked to continue investing, and then we have to define how far we want to go and what is the degree of commitment to the company, and that is seen on a case-by-case basis”. In summary, it was an excellent interview, not easy to secure due to the company's large and important stature in Spain. However, the effort was worth it, and the interviewee offered to continue providing their assistance if needed. 4.2.6 CBSI_2 The second of the interviews with a CBSI was greatly interesting and enlightening. The high level of expertise and experience of the highly regarded firm was evident. Firstly, when introducing the company and the role of the interviewee, the following definition of innovation was offered: “We cover innovative projects, which we call innovative because they have more risks associated with them, they are smaller, and they have a lower TRL 1 . That's what we mean by innovative. Not because we are going to reinvent the wheel. […] We see open innovation as a way of bringing together the capabilities and value propositions that already exist with the needs of our customers”. Also, about the context, and worth noting it out: “We do this kind of projects for both the public sector and the private sector. We organise ourselves in industries, that is, the firm has verticals: financial sector, utilities sector, energy, public sector and so on. So, we are cross industry, and we provide services to all of them as long as there is a project that requires it. For example, I am specialised in the financial sector and the public sector, but we also have experts in mobility, energy, etc. We have the Open Innovation line because it is considered that the corporate has to be well positioned and has to have a good knowledge of the market. In this programme, we do a kind of survey/scouting of startups that could be interesting for future collaborations, not necessarily for a specific project now, but because of their value 1 TRL: Technology Readiness Levels are a method for estimating the maturity of technologies during the acquisition phase of a program. 78 proposition, we find it interesting to onboard them and have them as potential partners. We always work on projects, whether from an investment perspective, that is to say that we finance them ourselves because of strategic interests, or reactively because the market demands it.” Those were mainly the introductory lines and useful contextualization. Then, as soon as we got into the question about the definitions of the study, the same answer as before was repeated regarding Open Social Innovation: “Me and all my contacts don't know about it because we haven't discussed it as the concept of Open Social Innovation. We've talked about it, but we talked about both without making the differentiation. Both in the firm and with our clients we do talk about innovation with a more sustainability and governance character, but conceptually open innovation is open innovation”. The role they claimed to have in these programmes was very clear and they defined it as follows: “We act as a nexus/facilitator and in many cases as an integrator of this technology. […] We orchestrate all the players, in order to satisfy this problem”. Then went on to clarify step-by-step the phases into which the process was divided and the details of the process: “Open Innovation for us is a framework. It always starts with a scouting phase, or rather a previous step, of going into detail, understanding what the client wants. […] What we always say to our clients is: “tell me about your problems, don't tell me about the technology”. I will bring you the technology and the technology is an enabler, let’s first talk about the difficulty. The next thing is: do you have the internal capabilities to solve that problem? If you don't have them, you can make two decisions. One, build them internally because, for you and your company, it is the core business, and you need to be the owner and protect the Intellectual Property (IP). Option two, if it does not belong to the core, you can rely on something that already exists as a matter of operational efficiency. I.e. if we go to market 79 and buy a solution or become partners with a solution that already exists, the time to market will be much faster than if we have to build it from scratch. Figure 10: Summarization of Phase 2 for CBSI_02. Once we have defined the needs of the client, and we have validated that they don't have the internal capacities and that they don't want to build them internally, that is, they want to have a very fast market and they want to look for value propositions that satisfy that need in the market, then we do the scouting. In this case, we either use our agenda, which is an internal platform where we have over 700,000 startups worldwide or we do some scouting by going to events or forums. We move around the whole innovation network that we have built and try to find those solutions that we think can potentially solve the problem [..] through an evaluation method, were we define a series of drivers to be able to evaluate and qualify these startups Once we set up that evaluation framework, we do the short-listing part. We take all these startups, we analyse them, together with the client, and we keep 50 or so. Here we enter a round of interviewing each of them, sitting down, understanding what their value proposition is, what they do and how they work. From that final list of 50 startups, where you are looking for a potential partnership, you go through a Due Diligence process until you reach the final solution. There, you not only assess whether the solution they have is going to satisfy your problem or whether you can set up a partner without opening a new business, but you touch on many other aspects. […] In the Due Diligence process, you talk about the collaboration model, who is going to own the IP, is this going to be licensed, who is responsible if something goes wrong, etc. 86 establishing clear guidelines and ethical principles can help mitigate such challenges and strengthen the focus on social impact. Measuring Social Impact: Measuring the long-term societal outcomes of OSI initiatives remains a challenge. The study emphasizes the need for robust impact assessment tools that capture the holistic effects of social innovations fostered by CSBIs. By better understanding the outcomes and effectiveness of OSI efforts, stakeholders can make datadriven decisions to enhance the overall societal benefits. Policy Implications: The findings of this study have significant policy implications, as in more than one of the interviews conducted, the importance of more support and backing from them was stressed. Policymakers can use this research to design and implement supportive frameworks that encourage corporate involvement in social innovation. By recognizing the role of CSBIs and their impact on fostering OSI, governments can incentivize and promote responsible corporate practices for social betterment. However, the study has encountered certain limitations due to two key factors. Firstly, the small sample size, which involved interviews with only a limited number of companies compared to the extensive number of businesses within the sector. This constraint might affect the generalizability and representativeness of the study's findings. Secondly, the study's exclusive focus on the Spanish market narrows the scope of insights, potentially overlooking valuable trends and practices from other international markets, which could offer a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. To improve the study, several ideas can be considered. Firstly, expanding the sample size by reaching out to a more diverse and larger number of companies within the industry would enhance the study's reliability and applicability. Additionally, broadening the geographical scope by including companies from different countries would provide a more global perspective on OSI practices. Moreover, incorporating quantitative data alongside qualitative interviews could strengthen the study's findings and enrich the analysis. Lastly, collaborating with experts or researchers from other regions to gain additional insights and perspectives would further enhance the study's depth and robustness. By implementing these suggestions, the study could overcome some of its limitations and yield more comprehensive and valuable findings in the realm of open social innovation. 87 All in all, this research study provides compelling evidence that Corporate Social Business Incubators play a pivotal role in fostering Open Social Innovation in Spain. The study highlights the importance of collaboration, trust, and transparent communication in driving successful OSI initiatives. Moreover, it points out the challenges and opportunities for aligning corporate interests with social impact goals. Future research can further explore the scalability and transferability of these findings to other contexts and regions to advance the field of Open Social Innovation. Conducting the interviews has been an enriching experience that has complemented theoretical frameworks and offered a more comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. The first-hand narratives and real-world context have been invaluable in broadening the perspective and enhancing the depth of analysis in this field. In conclusion, this master's thesis has presented a comprehensive exploration of Open Social Innovation and how to foster it, revealing valuable insights and potential areas for future research. It is hoped that this work will contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field and serve as a foundation for further studies in the future. 88 6. References [1] N. Churchill, Research issues in entrepreneurship, D.L. and Kasarda, J.D. (Eds), 1992. [2] B. A. Jasna Auer Antoncic, “Employee satisfaction, intrapreneurship and firm growth: a model,” Emerald Group Publishing Limited, 2011. [3] D. H. J. a. B. J. Kuratko, Managers’ corporate entrepreneurial actions and job satisfaction, International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 275-91, 2005. [4] E. a. L. S. Huang, How R&D management practice affects innovation performance, , Industrial Management & Data Systems, Vol. 106 No. 7, pp. 966-96, 2006. [5] P. T. A. W. J. a. L. T. Hom, Explaining employment relationships with social exchange and job embeddedness, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94 No. 2 pp. 277-97, 2009. [6] D. Merrifield, Intrapreneurial corporate renewal, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 8 No. 5, pp. 383-9, 1993. [7] H. Chesbrough, Open Innovation Results: going beyond the hype & getting down to business, Oxford: Clays Ltd, Elcograf S.p.A, 2020. [8] “NAE Grand Challenges for Engineering,” [Online]. Available: https://www.nae.edu/20782/grand-challenges-project. [Accessed 04 04 2023]. 89 [9] B. G. Foundation, “Grand Challenges Annual Meeting 2022 Held,” [Online]. Available: https://gcgh.grandchallenges.org/article/grand-challenges-annualmeeting-2022-held. [Accessed 04 04 2023]. [10] D. d. A. E. y. Sociales, “Naciones Unidas, Desarrollo Sostenible,” [Online]. Available: https://sdgs.un.org/es/goals. [Accessed 04 04 2023]. [11] Deloitte, “Qué son los criterios ESG y para qué sirven,” [Online]. Available: https://www2.deloitte.com/es/es/blog/sostenibilidad-deloitte/2021/que-soncriterios-esg-para-que-sirven.html. [Accessed 04 04 2023]. [12] J. W. a. M. Bogers, “Leveraging External Sources of Innovation: A Review of Research on Open Innovation,” J Prod. Innov. Manag., 2014;31(4):814–831, 2013. [13] E. E. a. H. C. Oliver Gassmann, “The future of open innovation,” Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2010. [14] A. F. D. V. Gabriele Santoro, “Open social innovation: towards a refined definition looking to actors and processes,” Sinergie, Italian Journal of Management , 2017. [15] G. Tuna, “CHAMPIONING SOCIAL INNOVATION FOR THE SDGS,” UNDP, 09 06 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.undp.org/turkiye/blog/championingsocial-innovation-sdgs. [Accessed 05 06 2023]. [16] G. S. A. T. O. AUTHORS!, “Are social incubators different from other incubators? Evidence from Italy,” Elseiver - THE OTHER ONE!, 2020. [17] Social Innovation Monitor, “Full Report on Incubators and Accelerators in the Netherlands”. 90 [18] M. I. R. M. a. S. E. C. ,. L. F. I. Brendan Galbraith, “The Evolution of the Incubator: Past, Present,,” IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT, 2019. [19] T. R. B. C. A. G. Johan Bruneel, “The Evolution of Business Incubators: Comparing demand and supply of,” Elsevier Ltd, 2011. [20] A. H. Rubenstein, A program of research on the research and development, IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag., vol. TEM-11, no. 3, pp. 104–112, 1964. [21] H. Baumgartel, Leadership, motivations, and attitudes in research laboratories, J. Social Issues, vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 24–31, 1956. [22] A. H. Rubenstein, Magazine review section, IRE Trans. Eng. Manage. vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 87–88, 1959. [23] S. M. H. a. D. M. Dilts, A systematic review of business incubation, J. Technol. Trans., vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 55–82, 2004. [24] S. W. a. D. Valliere, The impact of management experience on the performance of start-ups within accelerators, J. Priv. Equity, vol. 18, no. 1, 2014. [25] G. Sansone, “Understanding incubators and accelerators,” Prague University of Economics and Business, Updated November, 2022. [26] E. Waltz, “Start-ups weigh benefits of corporate incubators,” Nature Publishing Group , New York, 2008. [27] S.-L. M. e. al., “Toward a better understanding of corporate accelerator models,” Elseiver, 2019. 91 [28] D. Isenberg, “The rise of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.,” Harvard Business Review, 88(6), 1-9., 2010. [29] N. S. E. &. Z. A. Bosma, “Entrepreneurial ecosystems and economic growth,” International Monetary Fund., 2018. [30] M. C. G. S. Marie Leborgne‐Bonassié, “What do venture philanthropy organisations seek in social enterprises?,” Wiley Business Strategy and Development, 2019. [31] C. E. G. Michael J. Nowak, “The virtual incubator: managing human capital in the software,” Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved, 2000. [32] Acciona, “Por qué trabajar con nosotros,” [Online]. Available: https://www.acciona.com/es/nuestro-proposito/trabaja-connosotros/?_adin=02021864894. [Accessed 06 06 2023]. [33] Vonzu, “Traemos al presente la logística del futuro,” [Online]. Available: https://vonzu.io/sobre-nosotros/. [Accessed 06 06 2023]. [34] Liight, “Motiva hábitos sostenibles entre tus empleados,” [Online]. Available: https://www.liight.es/. [Accessed 06 06 2023]. [35] EnergyLOOP, “Innovation and technology for the recycling of wind turbine blades,” [Online]. Available: https://energyloop.es/en/home-en/. [Accessed 07 07 2023]. [36] I. -. P. V. Builder, “Invertimos para crear un nuevo modelo de proyectos de soporte a la electrificación,” [Online]. Available: 92 https://www.iberdrola.com/innovacion/programa-internacional-startupsperseo/perseo-venture-builder. [Accessed 07 07 2023]. 93 7. Appendix 7.1. Appendix A – Interview Structure for CBSIs - Innovación Social Abierta a través de los programas de las Incubadoras Corporativas - Objetivos de la investigación: Esta investigación pretende estudiar el proceso de Innovación Social Abierta a través de programas de Incubadoras Corporativas. El objetivo de este estudio es comprender el proceso, los obstáculos a los que se enfrentan los principales actores (por ejemplo, la empresa, la incubadora corporativa y las startups apoyadas) y los resultados tanto económicos como sociales/ambientales 2 de este proceso. Tratamiento de datos: Todos los datos recogidos serán tratados de forma anónima de acuerdo con el tratamiento de datos personales previsto en el artículo 13 del Reglamento UE 679/2016. Le invitamos a ponerse en contacto con el equipo de investigación de Social Innovation Monitor (SIM) para cualquier solicitud de aclaración e información. Correo electrónico de contacto: [email protected].edu | Duración de la entrevista: 30 minutos. Al responder a las siguientes preguntas, le rogamos que se centre en su experiencia relacionada con la implementación de actividades y procesos de Innovación Social Abierta a través de la Incubación Corporativa. A. INNOVACIÓN SOCIAL ABIERTA - INTRODUCCIÓN Definición: La Innovación Abierta es un conjunto de actividades y procesos en los que se basan las empresas para desarrollar una innovación que tenga en cuenta, no solo las ideas y recursos internos, sino también las herramientas y competencias procedentes del exterior de las empresas, en particular de startups, universidades, institutos de investigación, consultores y empresas no competidoras. La Innovación Social Abierta 2 A partir de ahora, el término "social" incluirá también factores relacionados con la "sostenibilidad" y el "medio ambiente". 94 es un subconjunto de la Innovación Abierta que engloba todas las actividades y procesos de Innovación Abierta y que se centra en apoyar la creación y el desarrollo de nuevas innovaciones (en cuanto a productos o servicios) para abordar problemas sociales. A1. ¿Conocía esta definición de Innovación Social Abierta? A2. Basándose en las definiciones presentadas, ¿cree que lleva a cabo actividades de Innovación Social Abierta a través de programas de Incubación Corporativa? - En caso afirmativo, ¿puede describirlos brevemente? B. MOTIVACIONES Y EXPECTATIVAS DE LA INNOVACIÓN SOCIAL ABIERTA B1. ¿Cuál es la razón principal por la que las empresas deciden iniciar proyectos de Innovación Social Abierta a través de programas de Incubación Corporativa? B2. ¿Qué competencias han permitido los procesos y actividades de Innovación Social Abierta? B3. ¿Qué resultados económicos ha obtenido o espera obtener de la Innovación Social Abierta? B4. ¿Qué resultados sociales se han conseguido o se espera conseguir con la Innovación Social Abierta? B5. ¿Son más importantes los resultados económicos o sociales en la Innovación Social Abierta? B6. ¿Cuáles son las métricas para evaluar o predecir el impacto social de los procesos de Innovación Social Abierta? B7. ¿Cuándo se miden los impactos económicos y sociales? C. ACTIVIDADES Y PROCESOS DE INNOVACIÓN SOCIAL ABIERTA C1. ¿Puede describir detalladamente las fases que intervienen en el desarrollo de actividades y procesos de Innovación Social Abierta? C2. ¿Qué competencias se desarrollan a través de los procesos y actividades de 95 Innovación Social Abierta? C3. ¿Quiénes son los empleados de la empresa que participan en el proceso de Innovación Social Abierta? C4. ¿Cuáles son las principales orientaciones y objetivos económicos y sociales que se persiguen? C5. ¿Las actividades y procesos de Innovación Social Abierta se producen de forma continua o solo en determinadas fases del ciclo de vida de un producto/servicio? C6. ¿Puede describir el mejor ejemplo de Innovación Social Abierta que haya puesto en marcha? D. RELACIONES EXTERIORES DE LA INNOVACIÓN SOCIAL ABIERTA D1. ¿Qué organizaciones y personas (partes interesadas) participan en las actividades y procesos de Innovación Social Abierta? D2. ¿Cómo se selecciona a estos actores? D3. ¿Cómo colabora con estas partes interesadas? Por ejemplo, ¿mediante acuerdos formales o informales? D4. ¿Qué tipo de actividades pueden realizar estos actores para la Innovación Social Abierta? D5. ¿Cuáles son los principales obstáculos a la hora de trabajar con estos agentes? D6. Por término medio, ¿cuándo y cómo concluye la colaboración con dichas partes interesadas?