See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286498550

Responsible innovation among academic spin-

offs: How responsible practices help developing
absorptive capacity

Article in Journal on Chain and Network Science December 2015

DOI: 10.3920/JCNS2015.x005

CITATIONS READS

2 23

2 authors:

Victor Scholten Patrick A. Van der Duin

Delft University of Technology Delft University of Technology
40 PUBLICATIONS 87 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 664 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Future of infrastructure View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Victor Scholten on 20 June 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
 Journal on Chain and Network Science 2015; 15(2): 165-179 Wageningen Academic
P u b l i s h e r s
SPECIAL ISSUE: Responsible innovation in the private sector

Responsible innovation among academic spin-offs: how responsible practices

help developing absorptive capacity
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123

V.E. Scholten* and P.A. van der Duin

Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5015, 2600 GA Delft, the Netherlands; v.e.scholten@tudelft.nl

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Abstract

Responsible innovation (RI) among technology-based start-ups has received little attention, while these firms are known
to operate on the edges of what is socially desirable or ethically acceptable. In this paper we develop a conceptual model
that captures the RI practices among 61 academic spin-offs and investigate how it affects the capacity of the firm to absorb
external knowledge to better the exploitation of the innovation. The findings indicate that potential absorptive capacity
is increased by both stakeholder engagement and social responsiveness, while realized absorptive capacity is moderately
increased through social responsiveness. Remarkable is the finding that the extent that sustainability practices resonate in
the start-ups operations does have a negative effect on the potential absorptive capacity. These results provide insight in the
way in which start-ups adopt a RI philosophy to their innovation process and help to better understand how they learn and
acquire external knowledge to increase the acceptance of their innovations. The findings provide clear recommendations
for entrepreneurs and policymakers in the field of entrepreneurship and innovation.

Keywords: responsible innovation, academic spin-offs, absorptive capacity

Copyright: 2015 V.E. Scholten and P.A. van der Duin. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 26 May 2015/ Accepted: 8 October 2015

1. Introduction and services, new business models and ways of working,

In recent debates among policymakers and academics, the
concept of responsible innovation (RI) has emerged as a
new paradigm to capture an innovation governance thinking
with a view to the ethical acceptability, sustainability and
societal desirability of the innovation process and outcome
(Von Schomberg, 2013). While most of the discussions are
at the policy and academic level on how to support and
stimulate more research programs that contribute to the
well-being of society and its social welfare, little research
has been conducted to investigate how it affects economic
actors and what benefits are to be gained for them (Blok
and Lemmens, 2015; Pavie et al., 2014). In particular, at the
level of start-up firms little research has been conducted to
understand how RI impacts their operations and the way
in which they identify new business opportunities. Yet, new
technology-based start-ups are often developing the more
radical types of innovations or address emerging markets
(Chiesa and Piccaluga, 2000; Van de Steen et al., 2010). These
more radical innovations that technology-based start-ups
bring to emerging markets often involve alternative products
and more efficient approaches to resource exploitation and
energy consumption (Nidumolu et al., 2009; Seebode et al.,
2012). While these technologies provide opportunities to
address societal challenges in terms of more sustainable and
ethically acceptable outcomes, the underlying technology
is often not proven and may go beyond current standards
of moral and cognitive legitimacy (Aldrich, 1999). Hence,
in these cases the start-ups are often operating on the edges
of what is socially desirable or ethically acceptable and it is
exactly these challenges of legitimacy which are the most
difficult issues that founders of entirely new activities face
(Hunt and Aldrich, 1996). Stakeholder groups such as
potential customers, suppliers, financial capital providers
may not fully understand what the purpose and business of
the start-up is. Developing strategies to increase legitimacy
and intensify the relationships with stakeholder groups is
important to gain access to resources and create a knowledge
base that can help these stakeholders to understand the
nature of the start-up (Zimmerman and Zeitz, 2002).
Especially, by following industry standards, certification
and explaining the code of conduct, a new firm can build

ISSN 1875-0931 online, DOI 10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 165

 V.E. Scholten and P.A. van der Duin
up trust and create a shared knowledge base (Aldrich
and Fiol, 1994; Temel et al., 2013). These strategies to
include stakeholders and anticipate and respond to them
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
with a view to the ethical acceptability, sustainability and
societal desirability of the innovation (Von Schomberg,
2013), is what defines RI. Following this definition by
Von Schomberg, an innovation strategy oriented towards
stakeholders can help start-ups to learn and gain external
knowledge and translate that it, in order to better articulate
the opportunity (Pavie et al., 2014). These strategies to
better understand stakeholders, engage with them and
monitor related technologies, markets and interest groups,
may help the start-up to position the new technology and
business proposition in the market (Cohen and Levinthal,
1990; Lechner and Dowling, 2006). A responsible
orientation on innovation may increase the interaction
with stakeholders; however, including stakeholders often
also requires substantial resources such as time, financial
capital and human effort (Orlitzky et al., 2011). It includes
the identification of relevant stakeholders, discussions and
consultations with them, and monitoring their satisfaction
(King, 2007). While it is claimed that the success of
innovation increases (Husted and Salazar, 2006), so do
the costs of technology development as well as the time it
takes before the technology is ready for commercialization.
Especially technology-based start-ups, which have little
financial resources and often focus on market entry, may
be reluctant to put their financial resources in engaging
stakeholders and articulating a sustainability strategy. Hence,
research can benefit from a deeper understanding of how
start-ups benefit from responsible innovation practices, e.g.
how they consider regulatory, environmental and social
pressures, and identify external knowledge that help to
become competitive (Delmas et al., 2011; McWilliams and
Siegel, 2001).
We follow these calls and in particular focus on new
academic spin-off firms in an attempt to investigate the
relationship between RI and absorptive capacity among
technology-based start-ups. In this paper, we continue the
reasoning by Zimmer and Zeitz (2002) who argue that
strategies of conformance and manipulation increases
a start-ups legitimacy and in turn helps it accumulating
resources to operate, such as human and intellectual
capital. In more detail, we draw upon the conception of
absorptive capacity, which determines the extent to which
organizational members are able to combine new external
knowledge with existing knowledge, and successfully exploit
it commercially (Zahra and George, 2002; Zahra et al.,
2009). Absorptive capacity reflects the routines to acquire,
assimilate, transform and exploit new external knowledge,
in order to build, maintain or renew other capabilities
166
(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Todorova and Durisin, 2007;
Zahra and George, 2002). To get a better understanding
of how RI interacts with the accumulation of resources
and firm capabilities we attempt to unravel the underlying
mechanisms of how start-ups benefit from RI and increase
their absorptive capacity.
More specifically, we aim to have two contributions. The first
contribution is on how an innovation governance approach
based on RI manifests itself within academic start-ups. This
answers to the call to get more empirical insights into RI
in the context of economic actors and in particular in the
context of technology-based start-ups (Blok and Lemmens,
2015; Pavie et al., 2014). The second contribution aims at
investigating the relationship between RI and absorptive
capacity. RI follows a transparent, interactive process by
which societal actors and innovators become mutually
responsive to each other (Von Schomberg, 2013), which
may increase the extent the innovator, the academic spin-
off in this study, better absorbs new external knowledge.
The paper unfolds along the following lines. In Section 2 we
review the relevant literature on RI and its association with
absorptive capacity. In Section 3 we discuss the methodology
and data collection, which is followed by Section 4 on
analyses and results. In Section 5, we conclude and discus
the implications for theory and practitioners.
2. Theory
The sustainability agenda, and especially the importance
of innovators and business leaders being responsible, has
received increased attention (Maak, 2007; Pless et al., 2012).
Policy makers grabbed the concept of RI to give direction
to their subsidy programs in research and innovation.
In 2011, the European Commission (2011) defined the
responsibility of organisations, which goes beyond
the compliance with rules and regulations. It requires
that organizations should have an integral approach in
their business operations to maximize the creation of
shared value for owners/shareholders, customers, other
stakeholders and society at large. Especially it is emphasized
that organisations should identify, prevent and mitigate
the possible adverse impact of their innovations. Managers
who combine economic orientations with an extended
stakeholder orientation are considered to make decisions
based on traditional morality and have strong concerns
for others over self-interest (Jones et al., 2007; Waldman
and Galvin, 2008). Hence, the business objective shifts to
optimizing the different values, such as economic, moral
and ethical values, and focus on achieving sustainable value
for business and society. Waldman and Siegel (2008: 119)
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
  Responsible innovation among academic spin-offs
stress, however, that responsibility exists only if there is a
clear return on this investment. In particular, in smaller
and start-up firms the focus is on the short term to survive
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
and find an market entry opportunity. However, researchers
have addressed that a deeper understanding of stakeholders
helps the firm to learn and gain new insights on how to
increase the acceptance of innovations (Zimmerman
and Zeitz, 2002). Absorptive capacity is considered the
organizational capability to learn from external actors and
combine the knowledge they acquired with the current
knowledge they have and translate it into products that
can be commercialised successfully (Cohen and Levinthal,
1990). Hence, this study aims to investigate how RI
manifests in technology-based start-ups and how it relates
to the absorptive capacity of these firms.
We specifically focus on academic spin-offs, since these
start-ups tend to focus on new and emerging technologies
for which it is often unclear how stakeholders perceive and
accept the new innovation being developed. Therefore, we
believe it is imperative for these firms to adopt RI practices
in order to be successful in the long run.
Role of responsible innovation in recognizing
entrepreneurial opportunities
Absorptive capacity was initially conceptualized by Cohen
and Levinthal (1990) and has received considerable
interest in organizational research (Lane et al., 2006). Firms
that have developed higher levels of absorptive capacity
seem to have a better understanding of customer needs
in turbulent markets (Liao et al., 2003) and have higher
firm performance (Kostopoulos et al., 2011; Chen et al.,
2009). Absorptive capacity consists of routines to acquire,
assimilate, transform and exploit new external knowledge,
in order to build, maintain or renew other capabilities
(Cohen and Levinthal, 1990; Todorova and Durisin, 2007;
Zahra and George, 2002). Researchers distinguish between
two dimensions of absorptive capacity; first the potential
absorptive capacity, which reflects the ability of a firm to
acquire and assimilate external knowledge (Fosfuri, and
Trib, 2008; Todorova and Durisin, 2007; Zahra and
George, 2002). The second dimension refers to the extent
to which a firm is able to realize commercial benefits from
that knowledge and is related to the routines of knowledge
transfer and exploitation (Zahra and George, 2002).
The link between RI and absorptive capacity has been
discussed from a corporate social responsibility (CSR)
perspective (Pelle and Reber, 2015). Researchers have
investigated the effects of CSR for larger firms and found
that a CSR strategy increases the trust that stakeholders
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
have in the firm (Hart, 1995; Russo and Fouts, 1997). The
underlying argument is that more trust is a result of the
environmental and social practices these firms adopt. To
develop these practices, the firm often needs to innovate
or adopt new activities that are often developed in close
relationship with clients, partners and stakeholders to
obtain new information and to align the new activities with
the stakeholders interests. The inclusion of stakeholders
to develop new activities makes it that the leaders of such
a firm are considered inspirational by followers (Sully de
Luque et al., 2008). Although the sharing of knowledge with
stakeholders is a challenge because of the diverging visions,
goals, motives and values of multiple stakeholders (Blok
and Lemmens 2015), the increased reputation and social
approval of the firm increases its attractiveness as a partner to
collaborate with, which makes the exchange of complex and
valuable knowledge more easier (Bundy and Pfarrer, 2015;
Hansen, 1999). Delmas et al. (2011) found evidence among
German chemical firms that when they are more proactive
towards the environment in terms of environmental
reporting, regulatory proactivity and operational progress
also have higher levels of absorptive capacity.
The concept of CSR has been further developed in recent
thinking of RI as a governance approach to innovation
where anticipating and gaining knowledge of possible
consequences and building capacity to respond to them
is central (Stilgoe et al., 2013; Van den Hoven et al., 2012).
In their article, Stilgoe et al. (2013) have articulated four
dimensions of RI based on a set of questions that have
emerged in public debates on what is considered important
for what scientists should ask themselves when conducting
research in new areas of science and technology. These
dimensions are anticipation, reflexivity, inclusion and
responsiveness. Anticipation reflects the extent to which
researchers are re-thinking the detrimental implications of
their work and assess their technology in order to be resilient
and re-shape the research agenda. Reflexivity means that the
researcher is reflecting on the activities and being mindful
that others may have a different perception of the activities
undertaken. Inclusion is the third dimension and reflects
the extent to which stakeholders are included in the decision
making process regarding the research agenda and its
outcome. And responsiveness is the fourth dimension and
indicates the extent to which researchers and organisations
respond to new knowledge as this emerges and to new
emerging perspectives, views and norms. These dimensions
do not have strict lines that separate each of them but they
are more blurred (Stilgoe et al., 2013). Furthermore, the
four dimensions are explained in much detail and each is
rich in the variety of techniques and approaches. Stilgoe
et al. (2013) include both more static mechanisms such as
167
 V.E. Scholten and P.A. van der Duin
codes of conduct, compliance with regulation, certification
and standards as well as more dynamic processes such as
open innovation, horizon scanning, technology assessments
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
and stakeholder engagement exercises. These dynamic
processes are discussed by Stilgoe et al. (2013) in terms of
a firms capacity to anticipate, gain and respond to possible
consequences of the choices made regarding an innovation
process. The dynamic processes of RI are closely related to
the dynamic capability concept of absorptive capacity, which
reflects the acquisition, assimilation, transformation and
exploitation of new external knowledge. While both the
dynamic processes of RI and the dimensions of absorptive
capacity are about understanding external knowledge and
the responsiveness to combine the external knowledge with
current knowledge, the concept of RI also includes the more
static mechanisms of codes of conduct, moratoriums and
adoption of standards and compliance with regulation.
The dimensions of RI have mutually potential overlap as
well as resonate with the concept of absorptive capacity.
It also has a focus on the capacity of academics to absorb
external knowledge and viewpoints and consider these in
the innovation and research activities, yet the dimensions
of RI also give clear directions for private organisations and
to reflect on the extent to which the innovation processes
these private organisations conduct can be considered
responsible. This is why we separate the RI processes as
developed by Stilgoe et al. (2013) into static mechanisms
and dynamic capabilities and investigate the mechanisms
such as RI practices which influence the extent a firm has a
capacity to absorb external knowledge.
Sustainability practices and absorptive capacity
Researchers have analysed how firms utilize resources with
the goal of securing and enhancing social legitimacy (Hart,
1995; Russo and Fouts, 1997). These studies investigated
the effect of going beyond compliance by using technical
devices, such as standards, accreditation regimes, codes of
conduct and other forms to coordinate and control their
operations (Callon et al., 2007). In their view, a compliance
strategy is where firms focus on a short term, ad hoc and
often end-of-pipe approach to comply with existing
regulation and social acceptance. Firms that go beyond
compliance will focus more on prevention and adoption
of a systematic approach that uses process innovations to
improve the environmental and social impacts of their
operations (Russo and Fouts, 1997). Russo and Fouts (1997)
continue and argue that firms that adopt a strategy that goes
beyond compliance probably need to acquire and adopt new
technologies to redesign their production processes. They
will develop specific resources, technologies and operational
practices, which are considered valuable to stakeholders.
168
Stakeholders may regard the firms as more proactive
towards new technological, market and environmental
developments and ascribe more value to its operations. The
reputation of the firm increases and stakeholders may be
more willing to collaborate with the firm and share their
experience and knowledge with stakeholders. This argument
is rooted in the recourse-based view (RBV). According to the
RBV, resources that are valuable, rare, inimitable and non-
substitutable are considered to provide the firm with more
competitive advantage (Barney, 1991). One route how this
competitive advantage comes about is because consumers
and stakeholders are more willing to collaborate with firms
that employ sustainable practices. These practices give an
additional social attribute to the products and services,
which are considered, by consumers and stakeholders as
valuable (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). Especially, when
firms are engaging in new activities, the entrepreneur can
reduce the ambiguity by using practices such as certificates,
symbols, ideologies and specific languages that others
understand as more responsible (Pettigrew, 1979).
These practices are also referred to as organisational
cognitive legitimacy strategies (Aldrich, 1999) that will help
the new firm to link past frameworks of understanding via
narrative and identity development. These linkages to the
past frameworks will increase the new firms reputation and
legitimacy that stakeholders address to the firm (Scholten et
al., 2001). It brings about higher levels of recognition, trust
and it improves communication with clients, partners and
other stakeholders. More easier communication and trust
translates in easier transfer of deeper and tacit components of
knowledge (Hansen, 1999). The firm will better understand
the stakeholders and accordingly can better understand the
value of external knowledge and articulate the combination
of the new external knowledge with its current knowledge to
commercialise the new innovation. As a result, start-ups that
put more emphasis on sustainability practices will increase
their legitimacy and acceptance as more taken for granted.
Stakeholders are more willing to communicate and deeper
communication of tacit knowledge components is possible
which will help the start-up to acquire and assimilate the
external knowledge, i.e. increase the potential absorptive
capacity. In addition, when the start-up has transformed
the external knowledge and combined it with its current
knowledge, the firm may be better off to exploit it, since
it has a better understanding of the stakeholders and can
better anticipate and respond to their needs. Hence, the
use of sustainability practices will also help the start-up
to better exploit its new innovations and accommodate it
among stakeholders, thus increasing its realized absorptive
capacity. This is why we argue that start-ups with more
explicit articulation of their sustainability practices will
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
  Responsible innovation among academic spin-offs
have higher levels of potential and higher levels of realized
absorptive capacity. These arguments lead us to our first
two hypotheses:
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
Hypothesis 1a: Spin-off teams that have higher levels of
sustainability practices will show higher levels of acquisition
and assimilation capacity (potential absorptive capacity).
Hypothesis 1b: Spin-off teams that have higher levels
of sustainability practices will show higher levels of
transformation and exploitation capacity (realized
absorptive capacity).
Stakeholder engagement and absorptive capacity
The stakeholder engagement approach rests upon the notion
of that it brings about economic value due to balancing a
multitude of stakeholder interests or demands (Freeman,
1984; Jones, 1995). Although one can recognise the benefits,
it is also argued that it comes with considerable costs to
increase stakeholder satisfaction (Orlitzky and Swanson,
2008). It often requires substantial financial and human
resources and time to identify a relevant stakeholder group,
negotiate with representatives of the group, and monitor
their satisfaction (King, 2007). Researchers argue that in the
long run, inclusion of stakeholders interests can increase
trust and communication with them and possibly reduce
transaction costs (Hosmer, 1995; Jones, 1995), but in the
short run the costs of decision-making will increase (King,
2007). While the costs of decision-making may increase,
the quality of the decisions may also increase. Through
consulting various stakeholders and taking into account
their concerns, firms are considered trustworthier and
develop a long-term reputation (Orlitzky et al., 2003).
The association with stakeholders will expose the firm to a
wider breath and more external knowledge, among which
they can choose the more relevant pieces of knowledge.
Vermeulen and Barkema (2002) found that a major benefit
from the engagement of stakeholders in new activities is
that they can obtain more external knowledge and absorb
it to their own needs. Furthermore, to obtain better results
from an environmental strategy and new environmental
technologies, firms need complementary assets, such as
capabilities for process innovation and implementation
(Christmann, 2000), which is easier to obtain when relevant
stakeholders are consulted and in turn will increase the
absorptive capacity of the firm (Lenox and King, 2004;
Scholten et al., 2015). This is further articulated by Tang et
al. (2012), who discuss that an engagement strategy is an
approach to consult and discuss with stakeholders in order
to acquire external knowledge for conducting the innovation
related activities and increase commercial outputs. Hence,
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
through stakeholder engagement, i.e. consultations and
discussions with stakeholders, firms may increase the
likelihood that they will obtain more valuable external
knowledge, which increases their capability to absorb more
various kinds of information. This brings us to the following
two hypotheses:
Hypothesis 2a: Spin-off teams that have higher levels
of stakeholder engagement will show higher levels
of acquisition and assimilation capacity (potential
absorptive capacity).
Hypothesis 2b: Spin-off teams that have higher levels
of stakeholder engagement will show higher levels
of transformation and exploitation capacity (realized
absorptive capacity).
Social responsiveness and absorptive capacity
The social responsiveness of a firm reflects the extent to
which a firm includes the social attribute of what the firm
produces or develops (McWilliams and Siegel, 2001). This
social attribute is considered valuable to customers as well
as to other stakeholders because it reflects the firm being
proactive and socially involved with the society it operates
in. Researchers have developed a variety of techniques
such as Technology Assessment (Guston, 2004) to evaluate
the potential positive and negative consequences of the
new technology. In particular, constructive technology
assessment is an approach in which during the design and
development of the innovation the feedback of stakeholder
groups is immediately incorporated in the construction
of technology (Schot and Rip, 1997). More recently,
researchers further developed this view and it is argued that
the social responsiveness of an organization includes several
conditions such as anticipation, transparency, reflexivity and
public participation (Owen et al., 2013; Stilgoe et al., 2013).
The social responsiveness can improve firm-stakeholder
relationships and improve the firms reputation among
customers, employees, regulators, and suppliers (e.g.
Brammer and Pavalin, 2006; Carmeli et al., 2007; Orlitzky et
al., 2003; Waddock and Graves, 1997). This leads to a better
exchange of information among various stakeholder groups,
more potential to identify valuable business opportunities
and a more constructive debate on how to further develop
the innovation with increased chances of success (Blok et al.,
2105). This brings us to formulate the following hypotheses:
Hypothesis 3a: Spin-off teams that have higher levels of
social responsiveness will show higher levels of acquisition
and assimilation capacity (potential absorptive capacity).
169
 V.E. Scholten and P.A. van der Duin
Hypothesis 3b: Spin-off teams that have higher levels
of social responsiveness will show higher levels of
transformation and exploitation capacity (realized
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
absorptive capacity).
Realized absorptive capacity reflects the activities of a firm
to develop the new insights that emerge from the newly
acquired knowledge and combine it with the existing
knowledge of the firm in order to exploit it commercially
(Zahra and George, 2002). This further development of
acquired knowledge is the logical extension of opportunity
identification (Ucbasaran et al., 2008). It often involves,
for instance, a feasibility study in which ideas are subjected
to preliminary market testing, financial viability analysis,
and feedback from business associates, and other forms
of assessment (Corbett, 2005). If the business idea is
still considered viable after evaluation, the idea is further
elaborated and exploited in the commercial environment.
This leads us to consider that before the opportunity being
identified through potential absorptive capacity of the firm,
the realized absorptive capacity is important to translate
it into commercial attractiveness. Therefore, we posit the
relationship between potential and realized absorptive
capacity in terms of the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 4: Spin-off teams that have higher levels of
acquisition and assimilation capacity (potential absorptive
capacity) will show higher levels of transformation and
exploitation capacity (realized absorptive capacity).
The hypotheses formulated above are depicted in a
hypothesized model which is presented by Figure 1. This
hypothesized model will be operationalized and tested
using multiple regression analysis in the following sections.
Sustainability
practices H1a Potential
H2a absorptive capacity
Stakeholder
engagement H3a H4
H1b
Social
H2b Potential
responsiveness H3b absorptive capacity
Responsible
innovation practices Absorptive capacity
Figure 1. Hypothesized model.
170
3. Methods
Sample
The sample of spin-offs is drawn among the start-ups in the
YES!Delft incubator at the Delft University of Technology
(The Netherlands). Within the YES!Delft incubator start-ups
are selected before entry on a variety of criteria. These criteria
include that: (1) the main activity of the start-up should be
focused on recent technology advancement; (2) the business
proposition should be based on a scalable business model
(e.g. it should have potential for significant and non-linear
growth); and (3) the founder(s) should spend their time full
time on the start-up. In order to have a more homogenous
sample we selected firms that were operating in three sectors.
The first sector is that of clean technologies and these firms
were mainly active in the development of alternative energy
sources. The health sector was the second sector and these
spin-offs were developing new medical devices based on
robotics and new materials. The third sector was that of ICT
and these firms were mainly active in developing new social
media and data analytics. The data was collected using an
online survey between February and March 2015. We send
the principal entrepreneurs of the start-ups an e-mail with
a link to the online survey and asking them to participate
in the research. The use of the main entrepreneur as the
informant is in common with other entrepreneurial studies
that have analysed firm resources and networks (Brderl
et al., 1992; Shane 2000). We therefore feel confident that
our respondents were sufficiently knowledgeable to provide
information about the resources and the external network
of the spin-off.
In total we send the survey to the principal entrepreneur of
91 start-ups in the YES!Delft incubator of which 82 have
responded. Not every of the 82 responses did fill out the
questionnaire completely and for our analyses we had 61
usable cases, making an effective response rate of 74%. A
non-response analysis on firm age and sector showed that
the non-respondents did not significantly deviate from the
sample we used for further analyses.
Measures
The measurement items were based on existing 7-point
Likert scales (1-strongly disagree to 7-strongly agree). A
complete list of the questions is provided in Appendix A.
To measure the degree of RI practices of the start-up we
followed recent discussions of RI (e.g. Pandza and Elwood,
2013; Stilgoe et al., 2013). For the RI practices we focus
on the more mechanisms of RI such as codes of conduct,
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
  Responsible innovation among academic spin-offs
compliance with regulation, certificates and standards.
In developing the scales we used three indicators that are
developed in previous research on sustainability practices,
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
stakeholder engagement and social responsiveness in the
context of innovation (Sharma and Henriques, 2005;
Orlitzky, et al., 2011; Russo and Fouts, 1997; Walls et
al., 2011). The questions were asked from the principal
entrepreneur and we asked him or her to reflect on the
practices and experience of the actual activities of the spin-
off. The first indicator measures the extent to which the
start-up adopts sustainable practices in its innovation and
business operations. We follow the concept of proactive
environmental strategies based on the reasoning of Sharma
(2000) and Sharma and Henriques (2005) who defined
these strategies as activities that reduce the environmental
impact of operations beyond the regulatory requirements.
These conceptualizations by Sharma (2000) are used in
combination with a rating system that measured the
extent to which the firm adopts an environmental record
(Russo and Fouts, 1997). We transformed the items to
the context of start-ups and used three items stating that
sustainability is important and: (1) is stated clearly in our
companys mission; (2) is clearly visible in our products
and services; and (3) it is part of our operational processes
(i.e. certificates). We believe that when the start-up has
formalized sustainability practices in the mission, products
and certificates it makes the firm accountable and thus
reflects higher levels of sustainable practices.
The second indicator we used is stakeholder engagement
and reflects the extent the spin-offs is consulting various
Table 1. Factor analysis for responsible innovation and entrepreneurial orientation measures.1
Sustainability practices
Cronbach 0.92
Sust_Practices1 0.883
Sust_Practices2 0.911
Sust_Practices3 0.796
StakeEngagement1
StakeEngagement2
StakeEngagement3
StakeEngagement4
SocialResponse1
SocialResponse2
SocialResponse3
SocialResponse4
SocialResponse5
1 Absolute values lower than 0.40 were suppressed.
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
groups of people in society to get information that may affect
the acceptance of their innovation. Using 4 items, we tried
to identify the extent that they obtain information about
developments in the market and technology that may affect
their innovation development by consulting: (1) suppliers and
partners; (2) journals, newspapers, government publications
and news media; (3) clients; and (4) societal groups. The
third indicator is a measure for social responsiveness and it
is reflected by 5 items: (1) we collect intensively information
about possible impacts of our innovation on the environment
and society; (2) we have articulated clear ethical norms and
values for ourselves; (3) we use certificates and credentials
although not strictly needed; (4) we put great value on moral
responsibility for society; and (5) we put great value on social
desirability for society.
All the items that measured the RI practices were analysed
with exploratory factor analysis using varimax rotation.
Table 1 gives the results of the analysis after rotation. The
analysis produced 3 factors that represented the three
indicators of RI. We also computed the reliability of each
construct and for each of the constructs the Cronbach was
satisfying and above 0.75.
The measures for potential and realized absorptive capacity
are based on the four dimensions of absorptive capacity:
acquisition and assimilation reflect potential absorptive
capacity while transformation and exploitation reflect
realized absorptive capacity. For the items of each dimension
we used existing items from Jansen et al. (2005), Szulanski
(1996) and Zahra et al. (2007). These measures are mainly
Stakeholder engagement Social responsiveness
0.76 0.87
0.704
0.783
0.783
0.758
0.653
0.823
0.681
0.788
0.868
171
 V.E. Scholten and P.A. van der Duin
used in the context of larger incumbent firms and therefore
we slightly reformulated the question, such as replacing
units of the organization by the management team in
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
order to make them more applicable for academic spin-
offs. Similar to the other constructs we analysed the items
for absorptive capacity with factor analysis with varimax
rotation and we found two main factors, which reflected
the potential and realized absorptive capacity. Although the
loadings were satisfying, one item, that captured the extent
that the founders consider the consequences of changing
markets demands in terms of new products and services,
loaded on potential absorptive capacity, while from earlier
studies we would expect this to load on realized absorptive
capacity. This might be due to the fact that we analysed start-
ups which often do not have existing products yet, compared
to the earlier studies, which dealt with established and
larger firms. We also had to drop one item that dealt with
storing the newly acquired knowledge for future reference.
This item loaded on both factors and did not discriminate
enough. The loadings of the items on potential and realized
absorptive capacity can be found in Table 2.
We also included several firm-level control variables in
our analyses, these included measures for the industry
sector that the spin-off is operating in (i.e. cleantech,
health and ICT/media), the spin-off firms age, and firm
size. These measures were included because theoretically
it can be argued that these control variables have a
systematic relationship with the independent variables
Table 2. Factor analysis for absorptive capacity measures.1
Potential absorptive capacity
Cronbach 0.89
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_A 0.680
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_B 0.867
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_C 0.820
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_D 0.780
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_E 0.723
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_F 0.680
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_H 0.606
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_I 0.673
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_K
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_L
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_M
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_N
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_O
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_P
1 Absolute values lower than 0.40 were suppressed.
172
or the dependent variable. For instance, older spin-offs
may grow more slowly than younger firms. Firm age was
measured as the number of years since the spin-off had been
founded. Similarly, the firm size measure was included to
control for the extent that the spin-off is absorbing external
knowledge. Firms with more employees may acquire more
diverse types of knowledge and may have more capacity
to process that knowledge and assimilate it. Furthermore,
larger teams may also have more capacity to pursue the
opportunities it identified, which may influence their level
of entrepreneurial orientation. Moreover, larger firms may
be more visible to outside audiences and act more cautious
not to put their legitimacy at stake. This may affect the extent
they put emphasis on RI practices. Finally we included the
various sectors that the spin-offs operate in, since the need
to act more responsible may differ across the various sectors
of cleantech, health and ICT/media.
Sample characteristics
The 61 spin-offs were distributed over three sectors (Table
3); cleantech (n=17), health (n=17) and ICT/media (n=27).
These are to a certain extent comparable with other studies
among spin-offs in the UK and USA where biotechnology
and ICT/Media spin-offs were the dominant type of start-
up (Nicolaou and Birley, 2003; Shane, 2004), although at
Delft University of technology the focus on biotechnology
is relatively small compared to other universities. The
spin-offs in cleantech are, on average, somewhat larger but
Realized absorptive capacity
0.80
0.572
0.717
0.688
0.696
0.725
0.649
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
  Responsible innovation among academic spin-offs

considering their age it seems to be comparable with the 4. Results

health sector. The spin-offs in ICT/media are considerably
smaller, however it was not significantly different from the Variable means, standard deviation and correlation
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123

other sectors due to the large standard deviations. Regarding

significant sector differences, we found a slightly significant
difference between the age of cleantech spin-offs and ICT
spinoffs, where ICT spin-offs were significantly younger
(3.3 years) than the cleantech spin-offs (4.8 years). Other
significant differences were found for sustainable practices
and potential absorptive capacity. Regarding sustainable
practices, cleantech had on average a statistically higher
level of sustainable practices (5.3 on a 7-points likert scale)
compared to 3.0 (P<0.01) for spin-offs in the health sector
and 3.3 (P<0.01) for ICT/media spin-offs. For potential
absorptive capacity, we found that ICT/media spin-offs were
scoring potential absorptive capacity significantly higher
(5.7) compared to cleantech (4.7; P<0.01) and health (5.1;
P<0.05). Although the differences are significant, the sample
size is relatively small.
Table 4 provides the descriptives and correlations for the
variables. The average age of the spin-off start-ups was
4,5 years and they obtained on average a growth of 8.0
employees since the spin-off was founded. The standard
deviation for age is 2.1 and the range of age was between 1
and 9 years. The employee growth has a standard deviation
of 9.3, which is somewhat over dispersed and indicates
that some start-up have grown relatively quick in terms of
employees. Further analysis indicated that on average three
founders established the spin-offs. These figures of employee
size and growth are comparable to high-technology firms
in the US (Eisenhard and Schoonhoven, 1990).
The indicators for RI and absorptive capacity were measured
using a 7-points likert scale. The mean averages for the RI

Table 3. Characteristics of the spin-offs in sample.1

Sub- Spin-off size Spin-off Sustainable Stakeholder Social PACAP RACAP

sample age practices engagement responsiveness

Count Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
n Fte years 7-Likert 7-Likert 7-Likert 7-Likert 7-Likert
CleanTech 17 9.1 (8.0) 4.8 (2.5) 5.3 (1.0) 3.1 (0.7) 3.7 (0.9) 4.7 (0.8) 5.1 (0.8)
Health 17 8.6 (13.4) 3.9 (2.3) 3.0 (1.5) 3.5 (1.0) 3.0 (1.2) 5.1 (1.1) 5.4 (0.8)
ICT/media 27 4.8 (4.2) 3.3 (2.3) 3.3 (1.6) 3.6 (1.0) 3.7 (1.2) 5.7 (0.9) 5.6 (1.1)
Total 61 7.1 (8.8) 3.9 (2.4) 3.7 (1.7) 3.4 (0.9) 3.4 (1.1) 5.3 (1.0) 5.4 (0.9)

1Fte = full-time employees; PACAP = potential absorptive capacity; RACAP = realized absorptive capacity; SD = standard
deviation.

Table 4. Descriptives and correlations (n=61).1

Mean SD3 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Sustainability practices 3.7 1.7

2. Stakeholder engagement 3.4 0.9 0.103
3. Social responsiveness 3.6 1.2 0.628** 0.267*
4. Potential ACAP2 5.2 1.1 -0.068 0.594** 0.256*
5. Realized ACAP 5.3 0.9 -0.097 0.318** 0.245* 0.506**
6. Spin-off age 4.5 2.1** -0.110 -0.089 -0.022 -0.157 0.082
7. Spin-off size 8.0 9.3** -0.077 -0.011 -0.058 0.022 -0.011 0.370

1 ** = P<0.01; * = P<0.05; = P<0.10.

2 ACAP = absorptive capacity.
3 SD = standard deviation.

Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015) 173

 V.E. Scholten and P.A. van der Duin
variables are 3.7 for sustainable practices, 3.4 for stakeholder
inclusion and 3.4 for social responsiveness with each
having low standard deviations. The two variables for
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
absorptive capacity are on average somewhat higher with
5.3 for potential absorptive capacity and 5.4 for realized
absorptive capacity.
Table 5 contains the estimated multiple regression models.
We regressed three models, the first two with independents
on both potential and on realized absorptive capacity
and a third model with all independent variables on
early employee growth. For each model, the standardized
coefficients of the independent variables, as well as the
R2, the adjusted R2 and the model F-statistic are given. We
checked for multicollinearity and for each of the predictor
variables calculated the maximum variation inflation factor,
which was below 1.65, suggesting there were no serious
multicollinearity problems (Hair et al., 1998).
The first model, Model 1, assesses the contribution of
the control variables and the role of the RI practices on
potential absorptive capacity. These variables explain about
44% of the variance in potential absorptive capacity. The
model shows that sustainability practices are statistically
significant but negatively related (=-0.342; P<0.05) to
potential absorptive capacity. Although the relationship is
significant, Hypothesis 1a suggested a positive relationship
and therefore has to be rejected. Hypothesis 2a, having
higher levels of stakeholder engagement has a statistically
and significant positive effect (=0.528; P<0.01) on potential
absorptive capacity and supports Hypothesis 2a. We also
Table 5. Regression results based on ordinary least squares (n=61).1
Model Model 1
Potential absorptive capacity ()
Sustainability practices -0.342*
Stakeholder engagement 0.528**
Social responsiveness 0.328*
Potential ACAP2
Spin-off age -0.153
Spin-off size 0.033
Model F-statistic 8.77**
R2 0.44
Adj. R2 0.39
1 ** = P<0.01; * = P<0.05; = P<0.10.
2 ACAP = absorptive capacity.
174
found support for Hypothesis 3a, stating that higher levels of
social responsiveness will increase the potential absorptive
capacity of the spin-off (=0.328; P<0.05).
In Model 2, we regressed the role of the independent
variables and the role of potential absorptive capacity on
the realized absorptive capacity of the spin-off. The model
is significant and the independent variables explain 33%
of the variance in realized absorptive capacity. The results
of this model do not provide statistically significant results
for the role of sustainability practices and neither for the
role of stakeholder engagement; both Hypothesis 1b and
2b could not be supported. The model reveals a moderate
but statistically significant and positive effect (=0.273;
P<0.10) of social responsiveness on the realized absorptive
capacity of the spin-off firm. This result supports Hypothesis
3b. Hypothesis 4, suggests the positive effect of potential
absorptive capacity on the realized capacity of the spin-
off. The results shown in Model 2 show a positive and
statistically significant relationship between potential and
realized absorptive capacity (=0.427; P<0.01), thereby
confirming Hypothesis 3b. The findings are presented in
Figure 2 and show that sustainability practices (=-0.342;
P<0.05) and stakeholder engagement (=0.528; P<0.01) are
statistically significant with potential absorptive capacity
but not significant with realized absorptive capacity, while
the relationship between potential and realized absorptive
capacity is statistically significant. This reveals that the effect
of sustainability practices and stakeholder engagement is
fully mediated by the potential capacity of the firm. Similarly
we see that the effect of social responsiveness is positive and
Model 2
Realized absorptive capacity ()
-0.230
0.029
0.273
0.427**
0.155
-0.061
4.39**
0.33
0.25
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
  Responsible innovation among academic spin-offs
Sustainability -0.34**
Potential
practices absorptive capacity
0.53**
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
Stakeholder 0.33*
engagement 0.43**
Social 0.28
responsiveness Realized
absorptive capacity
Figure 2. Empirical model of responsible innovation,
absorptive capacity, entrepreneurial orientation and early
employee growth.
significant (=0.273; P<0.10) on realized absorptive capacity
but the effect is slightly smaller as compared to the effect
of social responsiveness on potential absorptive capacity
(=0.328; P<0.05). As a result we argue that the effect of
social responsiveness is partially mediated by the extent the
firm has potential absorptive capacity.
5. Conclusion
This study is an attempt to explore how academic spin-
offs engage in RI practices and how it affects their
absorptive capacity . In doing so, it contributes to existing
literature in several ways. Our first aim was to identify
how RI practices manifest in technology-based start-ups.
Researchers have argued that a responsible orientation
on innovation does increase success (Husted and Salazar,
2006), however, despite some exceptions (e.g. Blok et al.,
2015) few researchers have empirically investigated how
small and medium sized private firms engage in RI. The
first observations are that firms have valid reasons to be
careful when sharing insight information on innovation
strategies with stakeholders (Blok and Lemmens, 2015) and
engaging stakeholders does also come with relative high
costs (Orlitzky et al., 2011), which in particular for start-
ups is difficult to uphold. The balance between costs and
benefits to engage in RI needs further research to understand
how small and start-up firms manage their innovations
in a responsible manner and can benefit from it. We
therefore surveyed a sample of high-tech academic spin-
offs in an incubator in the Netherlands. We developed three
measures for RI, which reflected the sustainability practices,
stakeholder engagement and the social responsiveness.
Based on theoretical discussions we formulated the items
for the measures, which we analysed on their internal
consistency and mutual discrimination. Our factor analyses
showed clear indicators for each measure. We also analysed
the extent that spin-offs in different sectors put emphasis
on the measures for RI and found that only the spin-offs
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
operating in the cleantech sector put significantly more
emphasis on sustainability practices.
The second contribution of the present paper is the
investigation of the role of RI on the absorptive capacity
of the firm. While most studies with respect to RI aim
at the policy debate or identify how large firms adopt
responsibility practices within their innovation process, few
studies (e.g. Van Geenhuizen and Ye, 2014) have empirically
explored the relationship between RI and the growth
performance of small and start-up firms. This paper has
investigated the relationship between RI practices and the
absorptive capacity of the academic spin-off. The findings
clearly show that RI practices mainly have an influence on
the potential absorptive capacity whereas on the realised
absorptive capacity the effect is weak and mostly absent.
It seems that for the processes of new external knowledge
acquisition and assimilation the role of RI practices in terms
of sustainability practices and stakeholder engagement
are important.
If we look more in detail at the RI practices, then we notice
that by engaging with stakeholders and putting more
emphasis on social responsiveness the academic spin-
offs seems to achieve higher levels of potential absorptive
capacity. The analysis and inclusion of various stakeholders
to acquire new information and assess the extent that the
stakeholders may accept the new innovation makes them
better in identifying more useful pieces of information. Also
being more socially responsive makes the spin-off more
caring about the acceptance and social desirability of the
innovations they pursue. This in turn helps them to better
acquire and assimilate the external knowledge. It seems that
the responsive attitude of the spin-offs makes their partners,
clients and other stakeholders more willing to share and
transfer the knowledge that the spin-offs needs to further
develop its innovation.
However, more unexpected is the negative effect of the
sustainability practices on potential absorptive capacity.
This finding is hard to clarify but one explanation might be
that the spin-offs that put much emphasis on reaching high
levels of sustainability in their daily operations, overlook
the opportunities that may be embodied in the various
types of external information they receive and as such their
levels of potential absorptive capacity remains relatively
low compared to spin-offs that are more focussed to obtain
higher levels of sustainability practices. In this way, it seems
that a focus on sustainability practices may hinder the start-
up in acquiring and assimilating external knowledge.
175
 V.E. Scholten and P.A. van der Duin
Limitations and future research
This study is an attempt to gauge the orientation of academic
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
spin-offs towards RI and how it affects their absorptive
capacity. The measures we used may need to be revised
and more strongly related to new insights regarding RI. The
concept of RI is still emerging and a sound conceptualisation
of measurement items regarding economic actors is still
lacking. With the measures we proposed in the present paper
we tried to capture the actual behaviour of the academic
spin-offs regarding RI. This actual behaviour might better
reflect the position and practices that academic spin-offs
employ with respect to the governance of their innovation
process. However, an avenue for future research is to improve
and develop more fine-grained measures that capture RI
among small economic actors. One remarkable finding is
the negative effect of the sustainability practices on potential
absorptive capacity. This finding of a negative relationship
between sustainability practices maybe specific to start-ups,
since they may not have a clear product or market they
target and once this will become more clear they may put
more emphasis on developing the narratives, certificates and
standards that are measured by the sustainability practices.
It would be interesting to see how this relationship between
the sustainability practices and potential absorptive capacity
behaves for firms that are more mature and have already
products and services for markets.
References
Aldrich, H.E., 1999. Organizations evolving. Sage Publications,
London, United Kingdom.
Aldrich, H. E. and M.C. Fiol, 1994. Fools rush in: the institutional
context of industry creation. Academy of Management Review,
19(4): 645-670.
Blok, V. and P. Lemmens, 2015. The emerging concept of
responsible innovation: three reasons why it is questionable
and calls for a radical transformation of the concept of
innovation. In: E.J. Koops, J. Van den Hoven, H.A. Romijn, T.E.
Swierstra and I. Oosterlaken (eds.) Responsible innovation 2:
concepts, approaches, and applications. Springer, Dordrecht,
the Netherlands.
Blok, V., L. Hoffmans, L. and E. Wubben, 2015. Stakeholder
engagement for responsible innovation in the private sector:
critical issues and management practices in the Dutch food
industry. Journal on Chain and Network Science 15: 147-164.
Barney, J., 1991. Firm resources and sustained competitive
advantage. Journal of Management, 17: 771-792.
Brammer, S.J. and S. Pavelin, 2006. Corporate reputation and social
performance: the importance of fit. Journal of Management
Studies, 43(3): 435-455.
176
Bundy, J. and M. Pfarrer, 2015. A burden of responsibility: the role of
social approval at the onset of a crisis. Academy of Management
Review, 40(3): 345-369.
Brderl, J., P. Preisendrfer and R. Ziegler, 1992. Survival changes
of newly funded business organizations. American Sociological
Review, 57(2): 227-242.
Callon, M., Y. Millo and F. Muniesa, 2007. Market devices. Blackwell
Publishers, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Carmeli, A., G. Gilat and D.A. Waldman, 2007. The role of perceived
organizational performance in organizational identification,
adjustment and job performance. Journal of Management
Studies, 44(6): 972-992.
Chen, Y.-S., M.-J.J. Lin and C.-H. Chang, 2009. The positive effects
of relationship learning and absorptive capacity on innovation
performance and competitive advantage in industrial market.
Industrial Marketing Management, 38(2): 152-158.
Chiesa, V. and A. Piccaluga, 2000. Exploitation and diffusion of
public research: the general framework and the case of academic
spin-off companies. R&D Management, 30: 329-340.
Cohen, W.M. and D.A., Levinthal, 1990. Absorptive capacity: a
new perspective on learning innovation. Administrative Science
Quarterly, 35(3): 128-152.
Corbett, A.C., 2005. Experiential learning within the process of
opportunity identification and exploitation. Entrepreneurship
Theory and Practice, 29(4): 473-491.
Christmann, P. 2000. Effects of best practices of environmental
management on cost advantage: the role of complementary
assets. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 663-680.
Delmas, M., V.H. Hoffmann and M. Kuss, 2011. Under the tip of
the iceberg: absorptive capacity, environmental strategy, and
competitive advantage. Business and Society, 50(1): 116-154.
Eisenhardt, K.M. and C.B. Schoonhoven, 1990. Organizational
growth: linking founding team, strategy, environment, and
growth among U.S. semiconductor ventures, 1979-1988.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 35(3): 543-576.
European Commission, 2011. Communication from the
Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee
of the Regions. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/pfxp96pdf.
Fosfuri, A. and J.A. Trib, 2008. Exploring the antecedents of
potential absorptive capacity and its impact on innovation
performance. Omega, 36(2): 173-187.
Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder
approach. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Kingdom. 292 pp.
Guston, D., 2004. Forget politicizing science. Lets democratize
science! Issues in Science and Technology, 21(1): 1-4.
Hansen, M., 1999. The search transfer problem: the role of
weak ties in sharing knowledge across organization subunits.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(1): 82-111.
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
  Responsible innovation among academic spin-offs
Hair, J.F. jr., R.E. Anderson, R.L. Tatham and W.C. Black, 1998.
Multivariate data analysis, 5th edition. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper
Saddle River, NJ, USA.
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
Hart, S.L., 1995. A natural resource-based view of the firm. Academy
of Management Review, 20(4): 986-1014.
Hosmer, L.T., 1995. Trust: the connecting link between
organizational theory and philosophical ethics. Academy of
Management Review, 20(2): 379-403.
Hunt, C.S. and H.E. Aldrich, 1996. Why even Rodney Dangerfield
has a homepage: legitimizing the world wide web as a medium
for commercial endeavors. Paper presented to the annual meeting
of the Academy of Management. Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Husted, B.W. and J.D.J. Salazar, 2006. Taking Friedman seriously:
maximizing profits and social performance. Journal of
Management Studies, 43(1): 75-91.
Jansen, J.J.P., F.A.J. Van den Bosch and H.W. Volberda, 2005.
Managing potential and realized absorptive capacity: how do
organizational antecedents matter? Academy of Management
Journal, 48(6): 999-1015.
Jones, T.M., 1995. Instrumental stakeholder theory: a synthesis of
ethics and economics. Academy of Management Review, -Jones
T, W. Felps and G. Bigley, 2007. Ethical theory and stakeholder-
related decisions: the role of stakeholder culture. Academy of
Management Review, 32(1): 137-155.
King, A., 2007. Cooperation between corporations and
environmental groups: a transaction cost perspective. Academy
of Management Review, 32(3): 889-900.
Kostopoulos, K., A. Papalexandris, M. Papachroni and G. Ioannou,
2011. Absorptive capacity, innovation, and financial performance.
Journal Business Research, 64(12): 1335-1343.
Lane P.J., B.R. Koka and S. Pathak, 2006. The reification of
absorptive capacity: a critical review and rejuvenation of the
construct. Academy of Management Review, 31(4): 833-863.
Lechner, C. and M. Dowling, 2006. The network perspective: the
relational mix and the growth of the entrepreneurial firm. Journal
of Business Venturing, 21(4): 514-540.
Lenox, M. and A. King, 2004. Prospects for developing absorptive
capacity through internal information provision. Strategic
Management Journal, 25(4): 331-345.
Liao J., H. Welsch and M. Stoica, 2003. Organizational absorptive
capacity and responsiveness: an empirical investigation of
growth oriented SMEs. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice,
28(1): 63-85.
Maak, T., 2007. Responsible leadership, stakeholder engagement,
and the emergence of social capital. Journal of Business Ethics,
74(4): 329-343.
McWilliams, A. and D. Siegel, 2001. Corporate social responsibility:
a theory of the firm perspective. Academy of Management Review,
26(1): 117-127.
Nicolaou, N. and S. Birley, 2003. Social networks in organizational
emergence: the university spinout phenomenon. Management
Science, 49(12): 1702-1725.
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
Nidumolu, R., C. Prahalad, M. Rangaswami, 2009. Why
sustainability is now the key driver of innovation. Harvard
Business Review, pp. 57-64.
Orlitzky, M., F.L. Schmidt and S.L. Rynes, 2003. Corporate social
and financial performance: a meta-analysis. Organization
Studies, 24(3): 403-441.
Orlitzky, M. and D.L. Swanson, 2008. Toward integrative corporate
citizenship: research advances in corporate social performance.
Palgrave Macmillan, London, United Kingdom.
Orlitzky, M., D.S. Siegel and D.A. Waldman, 2011. Strategic
corporate social responsibility and environmental sustainability.
Business and Society, 50(1): 6-27.
Owen, R., J. Stilgoe, P. Macnaghten, M. Gorman, E. Fisher and D.
Guston, 2013. A framework for responsible innovation. In: Owen,
R., J. Bessant and M. Heintz (eds.) Responsible innovation. Wiley,
New York, NY, USA, pp. 27-50.
Pandza, K. and P. Ellwood, 2013. Strategic and ethical foundations
for responsible innovation. Research Policy, 42(5): 1112-1125.
Pavie, X., V.E. Scholten and D. Carthy, 2014. Responsible innovation.
From concept to practice. World Scientific, Singapore.
Pelle, S. and B. Reber, 2015. Responsible innovation in the light
of moral responsibility. Journal on Chain and Network Science
15: 107-118.
Pettigrew, A.M., 1979. On studying organizational cultures.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(4): 570-581.
Pless, N., T. Maak and D.A. Waldman, 2012. Different approaches
toward doing the right thing: mapping the responsibility
orientations of leaders. Academy of Management Perspectives,
26(4): 51-65.
Russo, M.V. and P.A. Fouts, 1997. A resource-based perspective on
corporate environmental performance and profitability. Academy
of Management Journal, 40(3): 534-559.
Scholten, V.E., S.W.F. Omta and T. Elfring, 2001. The significance of
parenthood: the social capital of the parent organization and the
entrepreneurial outcome. Rent XV Conference, Finland.
Scholten, V., S.W.F. Omta, R. Kemp and T. Elfring, 2015. Interaction
effects of start-up team capabilities and bridging ties on early
spin-off growth. Technovation, 45-46: 40-51.
Schot, J. and A. Rip, 1997. The past and future of constructive
technology assessment. Technological Forecasting and Social
Change, 54(2): 251-268.
Seebode, D., S. Jeanrenaud and J. Bessant, 2012. Managing
innovation for sustainability. R&D Management, 42(3): 195-206.
Shane, S.A., 2000. Prior knowledge and the discovery of
entrepreneurial opportunities. Organization Science,
11(4): 448-469.
Shane, S.A., 2004. Academic entrepreneurship: university spin-offs
and wealth creation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA, USA.
Sharma, S., 2000. Managerial interpretations and organizational
context as predictors of corporate choice of environmental
strategy. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4): 681-697.
177
 V.E. Scholten and P.A. van der Duin
Sharma, S. and I. Henriques, 2005. Stakeholder influences on
sustainability practices in the Canadian forest products industry.
Strategic Management Journal, 26(2): 159-180.
http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123
Stilgoe, J., R. Owen and P. Macnaghten, 2013. Developing
a framework for responsible innovation. Research Policy,
42(9): 1568-1580.
Sully de Luque, M., N.T. Washburn, D.A. Waldman and R.J. House,
2008. Unrequited profit: how stakeholder and economic values
relate to subordinates perceptions of leadership and firm
performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 53(4): 626-654.
Szulanski, G., 1996. Exploring internal stickiness: impediments to
the transfer of best practice within the firm. Strategic Management
Journal, 17(S2): 27-43.
Tang, Z., C.E. Hull and S. Rothenberg, 2012. How corporate social
responsibility engagement strategy moderates the CSR-financial
performance relationship. Journal of Management Studies,
49(7): 1274-1303.
Temel, S., V.E. Scholten, R.C. Akdeniz, F. Fortuin and S.W.F. Omta,
2013. University-industry collaboration in Turkish SMEs.
International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Innovation,
14(2): 103-115.
Todorova, G. and B. Durisin, 2007. Absorptive capacity: valuing
a reconceptualization. Academy of management Review,
32(3): 774-786.
Ucbasaran, D., P. Westhead and M. Wright, 2008. Opportunity
identification and pursuit: does an entrepreneurs human capital
matter? Small Business Economics, 30(2): 153-173.
Van de Steen, M., R. Ortt and V.E. Scholten, 2010. Exploring
determinants of life sciences spin-off creation: empirical evidence
from the Netherlands. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Small Business, 10(1): 30-48.
Van den Hoven, M.J., G. Lokhorst and I. Van de Poel, 2012.
Engineering and the problem of moral overload. Science and
Engineering Ethics, 18(1): 143-155.
Van Geenhuizen, M. and Q. Ye, 2014. Responsible innovators: open
networks on the way to sustainability transitions. Technological
Forecasting and Social Change, 87: 28-40.
178
Von Schomberg, R., 2013. A vision of responsible research and
innovation. In: Owen, R., J. Bessant and M. Heintz (eds.)
Responsible Innovation. Wiley, New York, NY, USA, pp. 51-74.
Vermeulen, F. and H. Barkema, 2002. Pace, rhythm, and scope:
process dependence in building a profitable multinational
corporation. Strategic Management Journal, 23(7): 637-653.
Waddock, S.A. and S.B. Graves, 1997. The corporate social
performance-financial performance link. Strategic Management
Journal, 18(4): 303-319.
Waldman, D.A. and B. Galvin, 2008. Alternative perspectives
of responsible leadership. Organizational Dynamics,
37(4): 327-341.
Waldman, D.A. and D. Siegel, 2008. Theoretical and practitioner
letters: defining the socially responsible leader. Leadership
Quarterly, 19(1): 117-131.
Walls, J.L., P.H. Phan and P. Berrone, 2011. Measuring environmental
strategy: construct development, reliability and validity. Business
& Society, 50: 71-115.
Zahra, S.A., E. Van de Velde and B. Larraneta, 2007. Knowledge
conversion capability and the performance of corporate
and university spin-offs. Industrial and Corporate Change,
16(4): 569-608.
Zahra, S.A., I. Filatotchev and M. Wright, 2009. How do threshold
firms sustain corporate entrepreneurship? The role of boards
and absorptive capacity. Journal of Business Venturing,
24(3): 248-260.
Zahra, S.A. and G. George, 2002. Absorptive capacity: a review,
reconceptualization, and extension. Academy of management
Review, 27(2): 185-203.
Zimmerman, M.A. and G.J. Zeitz, 2002. Beyond survival: achieving
new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy of
Management Review, 27(3): 414-432.
Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015)
  Responsible innovation among academic spin-offs

Appendix A. Questions used in the questionnaire.

http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123

Sustainability practices

Sust_Practices1: Sustainability is important and is stated clearly in our companys mission

Sust_Practices2: Sustainability is important and is clearly visible in our products and services
Sust_Practices3: Sustainability is important, it is part of our operational processes (i.e. certificates)
Stakeholder engagement
StakeEngagement1: Very often, we have consultation with our suppliers and partners about our innovation and the
developments in our market and technology
StakeEngagement2: Very often, we have consultation with government officials about our innovation and the
developments in our market and technology
StakeEngagement3: Very often, we have consultation our clients about our innovation and the developments in our
market and technology
StakeEngagement4: Very often, we have consultation societal groups about our innovation and the developments in our
market and technology
Social responsiveness
SocialResponse1: We collect intensively information about possible impacts of our innovation on the environment
and society
SocialResponse2: We have articulated clear ethical norms and values for ourselves
SocialResponse3: We put great value on moral responsibility for society
SocialResponse4: We put great value on social desirability for society

Absorptive capacity

ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_A We frequently scan the environment for new technologies

ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_B
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_C
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_D
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_E
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_F
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_H
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_I
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_K
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_L
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_M
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_N
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_O
ABSORPTIVE_CAPACITTY_P
We thoroughly observe technological trends
We observe in detail external sources of new technologies
We thoroughly collect industry information
We can quickly interpret changing market demand
New opportunities to serve our clients are quickly understood
We analyse different sequences for new product development and introduction
We regularly consider the consequences of changing market demands in terms of new
products and services
We determine how customers will use our technologies
Identifying different customer groups that might have an interest in our products
We have a clear division of roles and responsibilities
We easily implement technologies in new products
We have a common language regarding our products and services
We constantly consider how to better exploit knowledge

Journal on Chain and Network Science 15 (2015) 179

 http://www.wageningenacademic.com/doi/pdf/10.3920/JCNS2015.x005 - Friday, January 29, 2016 3:06:25 AM - Technische Universiteit Delft IP Address:131.180.99.123

View publication stats