Stakeholder engagement for development of innovation ecosystem:

An India Perspective

Dr. Rahul Wagh*, Prof. Swapnil Patil**, Prof. Ajita More**, Prof. Jyoti Borde**

Abstract:

Innovation has a strong linkage to the world of startup. Solutions to unsolved problems form the basis for
thinkers to innovate. Industry is constantly working through its Research & Development engaging
intellectuals to constantly upgrade existing products/services or develop new lines of product/service
categories. On the other hand Incubation centers nurture startups and provide necessary assistance to
startups with innovative products/services to become viable business. Investors on the other hand are
keen to engage with startups that have business propositions that can be scaled up and wider market
acceptance.

Innovation ecosystem thus has these three major stakeholders working closely with each other. It is
imperative to extend partnership of all the three for meaningful outcome.

For any start-up to flourish the essentialrole is played by the Institute or Organisations which provide the
right skills and the time for the entrepreneur to flourish, Incubators or accelerators who could provide
the right direction and support in finalizing and marketing the product and Investors who provideprovide
monetary resources for establishing the product into the market. An active interaction between all the
parties to the ecosystem is essential in developing a strong ecosystem which supports the investor or
Entrepreneur.

In addition, resources like skills, time and money are also essential components of a start-up ecosystem.
The resources that flow through ecosystems are obtained primarily from the people and organizations
that are active part of those startup ecosystems. By events and meetings with and between organizations
and different people, these interactions play a key role in the movement of resources through the system
helping to create new potential startups or strengthening the already existing ones and hence influencing
the quantity of startups build. Failures of start-ups, release people with improved skills and time for
either establishing a new start-up or joining an already existing one.

The paper explores several studies in the field of start-up ecosystems for evaluating and examining their
core strengths and weakness and building a good ecosystem along with the key stakeholders of the
system.

There are several independent studies made to evaluate start-up ecosystems to better understand and
compare various start-up ecosystems and to offer valuable insights of the strengths and weaknesses of
different start-up ecosystems.

Keywords: Innovation, Startups, Incubation Centers, Skills, Ecosystem.

1. Introduction:

The Indian policy makers and researchers inside the area of innovation well have known the importance
of stakeholder engagement for stimulating innovation. The definition of Innovation is a ‘obvious,
interactive method by which societal actors and innovators become at the same time responsive to each

1|Page
other so that their acceptability, sustainability, societal desirability and marketability of products that
allows you to promote the new and innovative ways of doing the same thing.’ proper embedding of
clinical and technological advances in our society’

The term public and stakeholder interaction The standards of public and stakeholder engagement are
used interchangeably in this paper, despite the fact that we acknowledge the differences among the two
ideas; at the same time as a particular and fixed stake or interest is characteristic of stakeholders, the
hobby of the general public may be much less constant and associated with greater standard values like
the values of the Indian context.

From a coverage perspective, it's far assumed that stakeholders should be worried with the intention to
incorporate relevant ethical and societal aspects into innovation practices and to gain perfect dreams.
Additionally in the scientific literature, its miles extensively mentioned that stakeholder engagement is a
crucial technique to discussing and assessing the guidelines, implications and effects of innovations and
setting priorities in this discipline. At the same time, it's far clean that stakeholders have exceptional
thoughts approximately those moral and societal aspects of innovation practices and the societal dreams it
should acquire. These differences between stakeholders can be due to variations with regard to the content
of the societal.

In this paper, we tend to explore the way, firms with the intention and disposition to introduce in a
very tried and true approach area of unit occupation in the direction of the Innovation Literature
tries to understand the interactions between and among different stakeholders. ideal of mutual
responsiveness among stakeholders, because it is bestowed within the Innovation literature.

The major focused questions of this paper is to

1. What extent firms involved stakeholders in every section of the innovation process?
2. What areas and their issues relating to neutral engagement and how they affect the risks
of neutral engagement in their innovation processes?

By exploring the scope of neutral engagement in innovation within the non-public sector, we tend
to establish essential problems relating to neutral engagement specific to innovation in the non-
public quarter, in addition to management practices which may help to deal with those issues.
Primarily based on a literature evaluation inside the area of Innovation and stakeholder engagement
we increase a theoretical framework that became in the end explored in the course of interviews
with organizations inside the Indian meals industry and non-monetary stakeholder like NGOs and

2|Page
research institutes concerned in meals innovations within India. we've have selected the Indian
meals enterprise for this study, because progressive food organizations an increasing number of
well-known their function within the prevention and mitigation of life-style related sicknesses
affecting all aspects of health currently prevailing and like obesity, heart illnesses and diabetes type
2, and are currently concerned in all styles of improvements for public fitness. Based totally at the
evaluation of the primary information in section four, we are able to draw conclusions concerning
the crucial issues in stakeholder engagement in innovation inside the private sector and control
practices for dealing with these issues.

2. Review of Literature

Due to the fact innovation is not automatically ‘precise’ but may additionally have unintended and
irreversible socio-ethical or environmental outcomes, those viable results of innovations over time must
be considered in innovation methods (be counted, 2011). Mirrored image on its capability and actual
effects in phrases of first-rate of lifestyles, properly-accessed and sustainable enough to decide on the
whether an idea being and sustainability is necessary to decide whether an innovation is ‘right’ or
‘accountable’ (Van den Hoven et al., 2012). on this observations, we use the main definition of innovation
which is developed by means of Von Schomberg: Innovation is a ‘obvious, interactive manner through
which societal actors and innovators turn out to be mutually conscious of every different so as to the
obvious, interactive method by which societal actors and innovators become at the same time
responsive to each other so that their acceptability, sustainability, societal desirability and
marketability of products that allows you to promote the new and innovative ways of doing the
same thing.’ (moral) acceptability, sustainability and societal desirability of the system and its
marketable merchandise that allows you to allow a proper embedding of scientific and technological
advances in our society’ (Von Schomberg, 2013: 19).

Owen and co-workers advanced three distinct and emergent features of Inovation (J. Bessant et al.,
2013). (Owen et al., 2013).. The first feature involves technological advancements in the society. The first
feature concerns the emphasis on science and innovation for society. The purpose of technology and
innovation and the proper effect are confused, i.e. the contribution to societal goals. inside the european
context, there are numerous so-called ‘grand challenges’ just like the growing old of people, lifestyles
fashion sicknesses like weight problems, and weather trade, and RI contributes at the least partly to the

3|Page
answer of these problems. The second characteristic of innovation worries technology and innovation
with society.

Actors should be responsive to society concerning the course and trajectory of improvements. This
selection mentioned is supported through Von Schomberg (2013), who proposes that factors in the society
and the entrepreneurs have to responsive to every aspect jointly. who argues that societal actors and
innovators have to become jointly responsive to every different. The 1/3 function concerns the
responsibility of actors worried in innovation as an uncertain, frequently complicated and usually
collective endeavor in which businesses, scientists, NGO’s, etc. are concerned. As a collective endeavor,
all actors worried within the innovation manner proportion obligation and are co-responsible (Owen et al.,
2013; Von Schomberg, 2013).

The three features of RI already make clean that SEDIE (Stakeholder Engagement for Developing
Innovation Ecosystem) is essential. In the next section, we will consequently explore the concept of
stakeholder engagement.

Stakeholder engagement

Stakeholders are corporations or people who can affect or are suffering from a company (Freeman, 1984).
Corporations ought to address a large range of stakeholders, each inner such as providers, clients,
employees, and external which include governments and NGOs (Freeman, 2010). We will distinguish
among economic stakeholders like employees and suppliers, and non-monetary stakeholders like NGOs
and studies institutes. it's far an open ended debate who counts as a valid stakeholder and why, and there
are various theoretical perspectives on stakeholder engagement, just like the instrumental, the normative
and the descriptive attitude (Donaldson and Preston, 1995).

In keeping with the normative method, stakeholders have a valid hobby inside the approaches and
products of the enterprise and the company has to take these hobbies under consideration (Donaldson and
Preston, 1995). Stakeholder engagement can therefore be described as ‘practices that a business enterprise
undertakes to involve stakeholders in organizational sports in an effective way’ (Greenwood, 2007). It
offers get right of entry to information (Sharma, 2005), stimulates mutual understanding (Gao and Zhang,
2006) and promotes the improvement of collaboration and shared objectives among key stakeholders
(Andriof and Waddock, 2002). On this paper, we attention at the engagement of non-financial
stakeholders in innovation within the private sector only.

4|Page
Stakeholder engagement calls for statistics sharing and interplay amongst stakeholders. It concerns data
flows in each guidelines, specifically each records from stakeholders into the agency and facts out of the
organization to the stakeholders (Gould, 2012). One manner information sharing and two-manner
interaction can be performed is through communicate (Blok, 2014a; Burchell and cook, 2006).
Communicate amongst stakeholders’ gives perception into the needs of the stakeholders, enhances mutual
expertise and permits the advent of a win-win situation. Sharing statistics and information is likewise a
manner to build considered among stakeholders. Andriof and Waddock (2002) describe stakeholder
engagement as consider-based totally collaborations , in which accept as true with-building activities
like communication and interplay are a prerequisite.

Stakeholder engagement in innovation

It is clear that the literature on SEDIE has a normative angle on stakeholder engagement. Technological
know-how and innovation for society means that society has pastimes, which ought to be taken into
account in innovation, and technology and innovation with society means that those hobbies of
stakeholders need to be concerned inside the innovation technique to be able to attain greater innovation.

Regardless of this importance of SEDIE, studies at the manner stakeholders can be engaged and managed
in innovation is missing. This can be defined via the fact that the sector of Innovation is emergent and
therefore, that empirical proof continues to be scarce in this field of studies. Primarily based on the
findings in previous sections on innovation and on stakeholder engagement, 4 characteristics of SEDIE
may be described:

1. Transparency- Von Schomberg’s definition of Innovation as a ‘obvious, interactive system by

which societal actors and innovators grow to be collectively attentive to each different’ makes
clean that transparency is a feature of SEDIE (Von Schomberg, 2013). The importance of
transparency is likewise confirmed in the literature on stakeholder engagement, particularly the
significance of two-way facts sharing for successful collaborations (Bryson et al., 2006).
Transparency concerns the hole up of the innovation method by sharing knowledge and statistics
amongst a couple of stakeholders. Shared statistics and information permits companies to
evaluate the societal needs, for instance, whilst it enables stakeholders to assess the dangers and
future impact of innovations.

2. Interaction- Von Schomberg’s definition already refers to an obvious and interactive innovation
method. One of the features of innovation turned into located in science for society, and interplay

5|Page
 with multiple stakeholders’ permits actors to develop one of these shared objective and cause of
innovation processes (cf. Owen et al., 2013). The importance of interplay is also confirmed in the
stakeholder engagement literature, particularly the critical function of dialogue in establishing
consensus concerning shared targets and purposes (Andriof and Waddock, 2002). Interaction
issues the communicate among more than one stakeholders approximately the functions of
innovation methods and the dangers and uncertainties involved, which can be inspired by means
of transparency amongst stakeholders (Ayuso et al., 2006).

3. Responsiveness- Von Schomberg’s definition of innovation refers to transparency closer to and

interplays with stakeholders for you to emerge as jointly conscious of each other. Stakeholder
engagement does not stop with sharing statistics and interplay, however should bring about
movement and behavior, i.e. an institutionalized responsiveness of the enterprise towards society
regarding the path and trajectory of the innovation process, given the risks and uncertainties
worried. Responsiveness to stakeholders indicates that actors are clearly engaged in innovation
with society and for society.

4. Mutual Responsibility- Consistent with Von Schomberg (2013) and Owen et al. (2013), mutual
responsiveness in the direction of stakeholders ends up in co-duty among stakeholders. in line
with Von Schomberg, ‘co-obligation implies […] that actors need to turn out to be together
responsive, consequently organizations adopting a perspective going beyond immediate market
competiveness and NGOs reflecting at the constructive role of latest technologies for sustainable
product development’ (Von Schomberg, 2013: 70-seventy one). And consistent with Owen et al.
(2013), innovation is a collective endeavor wherein the functions of the innovation are described
in an inclusive and democratic way. Also in the literature on stakeholder engagement, co-
responsibility is recognized. In step with Waddock, lively stakeholder engagement includes
mutual responsibility (mentioned in Burchcell and cook, 2006). In innovation, stakeholder
engagement does no longer quit with the mutual responsiveness of stakeholders towards every
other, but entails co-responsibility among multiple stakeholders as nicely.

In brief, transparency about records and expertise among more than one stakeholders is critical to
assessing the social-ethical and environmental risks related to innovation tactics. This records and
information may be used during the interplay among stakeholders with the intention to gain consensus
concerning the goals and functions of innovation trajectories. In reality, innovation trajectories are aware

6|Page
of the societal wishes and issues which came up for the duration of the interplay with a couple of
stakeholders. In their mutual responsiveness to each other, stakeholders are co-answerable for this
innovation trajectory.

Stakeholder engagement in responsible innovation strategies

One manner to embed SEDIE can be observed in the idea of an open innovation (Bessant, 2013). Open
innovation is described as ‘a paradigm that assumes that corporations can and must use outside ideas in
addition to internal thoughts, and inner and external paths to marketplace, as they appearance to
strengthen their generation’ (Chesbrough, 2003, 2006). In each open innovation and stakeholder
engagement, actors reach out of doors their boundaries and make a specific effort to get entry to outside
facts (Gould, 2012), i.e. engage stakeholders of their innovation tactics. In open innovation, the point of
interest is on monetary stakeholders like providers and once in a while even competition who attempt to
innovate collectively, at the same time as in innovation, the focal point is on non-economic stakeholders
like NGOs as nicely in order to determine the socio-moral dimensions of the innovation.

While reading stakeholder engagement in innovation procedures, it's miles critical to conceptualize the
innovation system. A degree gate model of innovation enables to conceptualize the innovation technique,
because it highlights the ‘gates’ wherein choices concerning the real paintings on improvements – the
degrees – are crafted from concept technology to launch-to-market (Cooper, 1990) and innovation has an
effect on decision-making tactics during the innovation technique. Masses of companies have
implemented an implicit or explicit innovation manner based totally on a concept-to-release gadget
(Cooper, 2008). Within the area of innovation, simplest a confined amount of (studies-based totally)
instances worked with the level-gate version (Macnaghten and Owen, 2011) even as no such instances of
innovation have been determined within the personal area. In this study, the maximum usually defined
degree-gate model is used (Cooper, 1990; Cooper et al., 2002), which includes the following ranges: the
discovery degree wherein new possibilities for new merchandise are diagnosed, the scoping stage in
which the technical and marketplace blessings of the innovation are determined, the commercial
enterprise case level, which is the ultimate level before making an investment inside the innovation, the
development level, in which the enterprise case is translated into concrete deliverables, the testing and
validation level, wherein the product and purchaser attractiveness is assessed, and finally the launch
degree, wherein the innovation is carried out in advertising and marketing sports (Cooper, 1990, 2001).

3. Methods

7|Page
For this study an exploratory and qualitative technique is used so that you can identify how a ways
revolutionary agencies that contribute to the solution of the grand demanding situations of our time and
interact stakeholders to gain their objectives (and therefore have the disposition to innovate in a more
accountable way) are moving in the path of the best of mutual responsiveness among stakeholders, the
critical troubles they revel in and the management practices designed to deal with these issues. Because
research on this discipline is scarce, an exploratory and intensive, qualitative method is justified.
Qualitative interviewing offers individuals the opportunity to share their enjoy, skip on their knowledge
and provide their personal perspective on various topics (Boeije, 2010).

The case choice targeted on larger groups (>SMEs) inside the Indian food enterprise. This area turned
into chosen because of its direct relation with some of the grand challenges of our time – lifestyle diseases
like weight problems, diabetes type 2, and so forth. – And the expanded engagement of stakeholders
inside the agri-food zone so that it will make a contribution to societal desires (Dentoni et al., 2012). The
India affords beneficial cases of food innovation, because it has a mature meals enterprise with a
recognized quantity of revolutionary agencies.

Purposive sampling has been used to locate suitable cases, based totally on professional interviews and
desk studies. Because innovation in widespread and within the non-public quarter mainly is an emerging
subject, we decided on instances that take responsibility for the answer of the grand challenges of our
time and engage stakeholders to acquire their goals, i.e. companies that display at least the disposition to
innovate in a greater accountable way. Fifteen corporations and 5 non-monetary stakeholders have been
approached for an interview. 4 organizations had been selected, primarily based on the following criteria:
the enterprise contributes without delay or indirectly to the solution of the grand demanding situations of
our time, the organization involves stakeholders to attain their targets, the corporation has an R&D branch
inside the India and the enterprise is bigger than an SME. Four groups did no longer meet the criterion of
having an R&D department inside the India, two groups have been smaller than SMEs, 4 corporations did
now not interact stakeholders in innovation methods, three groups have been no longer interested by
participating in the studies and businesses in no way replied, notwithstanding several tries to get in touch
with them. Two non-monetary stakeholders were decided on, based totally on the subsequent criteria:
stakeholders have a few affect at the innovation system of Indian meals organizations, stakeholders are
actively worried in the solution of grand demanding situations. Stakeholder ‘A’ collaborates with
organizations and lets in them to use a front-of-p.c. emblem of the stakeholder if the product meets the
criteria for healthy food, which are developed and assessed by way of the stakeholder. The primary goal
of stakeholder ‘B’ is the combat against heart illnesses, by way of investing in studies, schooling and the
quality development of care. They from time to time collaborate with corporations and permit them to

8|Page
apply their brand at the package of food merchandise, if the product contributes to the prevention of heart
sicknesses. There may be no direct relation between stakeholders and companies, although it became out
all through the interviews that agency 2 actively cooperates with stakeholder A.

One of the researchers held four in-depth semi-structured interviews with the R&D manager or
nutritionists of the organization who're involved in stakeholder engagement in innovation tactics. He also
held two in-depth semi-established interviews with representatives of the stakeholders who honestly
cooperate with companies. Throughout the interviews, it became out that enterprise 1 does engage health
companies, despite the fact that in particular thru department organizations and that they do now not
involve them of their innovation procedure. They do, but, contain universities in their innovation method.
In the case of employer 1, the engagement of the university within the innovation manner is therefore
analyzed. In all other instances, both stakeholder engagement with NGO’s like health businesses and with
studies institutes is taken into consideration. Each non-monetary stakeholder collaborates with businesses
inside the food industry on an ordinary basis.

Based totally on the literature evaluation, a questionnaire with 30 open questions changed into developed
for semi-based interviews with the agencies and the stakeholders. Because current questionnaires and
scales do no longer focus on non-monetary stakeholder engagement in innovation procedures, the
researchers first operationalized the constructs from the literature into variables after which into questions
(the interview questions are available upon request). An interview protocol become developed to
safeguard non-biased and regular statistics series. The respondents were interviewed approximately
innovation, the 4 traits of SEDIE (transparency, interaction, responsiveness and mutual responsibility),
the crucial issues they enjoy regarding those 4 traits and the management practices for managing those
worries.

The interviews were transcribed after the interview and sent lower back to the interviewees to allow them
to make corrections and adjustments. Next, the transcriptions were qualitatively analyzed by the
researchers. The researchers tried to increase assemble validity by means of additionally reading
organization documents (cf. Boeije, 2010). This became out now not to be possible as the enterprise
documents most effective deal with company social duty problems and now not particularly with SEDIE.
To increase assemble validity, information triangulation changed into used as stakeholder groups were
interviewed as properly. Via comparing the effects of the agency interviews with the stakeholder
interviews, the researchers have been capable of investigate the objectivity of the information supplied by
the companies, and offer precise information from the perspective of the stakeholder.

9|Page
 4. Results and discussion
In order to answer question how a companies are advancing toward the precise of mutual responsiveness
amongst stakeholders, we first discover whether or not the corporations in our sample have interaction
stakeholders in their innovation for society and with society, and whether or not they share responsibility
with stakeholders in the manner of innovation.

Innovation for society

All interviewed agencies innovate both to make an income so that it will make certain the continuity of
their enterprise, and to fulfill their social obligation to expand, produce and sell more healthy food
merchandise. Business enterprise 1 explains as an instance: ‘a particular trouble inside organization 1, in
which we are not worried to increase profitability, is salt discount. This doesn’t make a contribution to
profitability however it contributes in reality to the fitness of clients’. For maximum organizations,
profitability is the main driving force, at once followed by using social obligation as a purpose in the back
of their innovation efforts. For agency three, social duty is the main motive force whilst they are
innovating: ‘Innovation is constantly vital for business; otherwise it will no longer work. however the
start line is in the end the health of humans, in particular right here due to the fact we have many scientists
who're dedicated to the fitness of people’.

The idea that groups are as a minimum partially motivated to innovate out in their duty to make
contributions to the fitness of society is confirmed with the aid of the stakeholders. Stakeholder ‘A’
explains: ‘I assume many agencies, no longer they all of direction, are privy to the truth that there is a
problem within the India regarding food supply and customers’ meals choices’. Stakeholder ‘B’ makes
this extra touch upon the incentive of corporations to innovate in a accountable manner: ‘What I see is
that some corporations release a restricted amount of new, healthier products on the market, even as
retaining the antique assortment the way it is. And then I think, I would really like to lessen the full
amount of fat or salt or sugar in the entire collection. Its miles tremendous of path that a organization
brings a new product to the marketplace, however I assume that if you surely are concerned about health,
you ought to modify all your products’.

Innovation with society

Concerning innovation with society, all respondents involve stakeholders as well, although in a specific
manner than is usually recommended within the literature. In keeping with Owen et al. (2013), actors
must be responsive to society concerning the direction and trajectory of improvements, and according to
Von Schomberg (2013), stakeholders have to be mutually aware of each other for the duration of the
innovation procedure. Sooner or later, in keeping with the matter file (2011), ‘Innovation is the consistent,

10 | P a g e
ongoing involvement of society, from starting to end of the innovation technique’ (emphasis added). In
practice, it turns out that companies do interact stakeholders, even though on a more strategic degree and
no longer in each segment of the innovation procedure. Agencies 2 and 4 do interact fitness groups at
once of their innovation manner, while corporations 1 and 3 engage fitness companies on a greater
strategic degree and not on the product stage. In these instances, research institutes are involved in the
innovation technique.

When speaking about stakeholder engagement, maximum organizations distinguish three stages inside the
innovation technique: a preliminary section which focuses on concept generation, a middle section which
is composed within the actual product improvement, and a final phase which concerns the
commercialization of the innovation. The engagement of stakeholders like health corporations particularly
takes place in the first section of concept generation and at a extra strategic level, or as company 3 puts it:
‘What happens is that together we attempt to find out wherein the dietary gaps are. We use that as an
input. What are we able to, as a company; make a contribution to the improvement of a product that is
able to cope with these needs? And occasionally, no longer continually, we are able to develop a product
that meets the recognized wishes’. This quote makes clean that business enterprise 3 suggests at least
some transparency toward stakeholders through sharing information at some point of the concept era
phase, is certainly interacting with stakeholders and is once in a while conscious of the worries raised
through the stakeholders.

The main motive of enterprise 1 to interact stakeholders on this first section is to perceive new
commercial enterprise possibilities for wholesome food products, even as for business enterprise 3, the
engagement of stakeholders will increase the credibility of the agency: ‘What we continually say is that
we as a company want to be credible. We don’t want to do something, that's best supported by using us.
We usually want to do it in speak and we need that stakeholders accept as true with that it's miles actually
a very good product’. This quote is an indication that company three not most effective stocks
information and interacts with stakeholders, however to a sure quantity also attempts to be attentive to the
demands of their stakeholders. Agency 3 works for example with a systematic advisory board that gives
new insights and allows reflecting on new product thoughts.

Throughout the center section of the innovation, the actual product development section, most
corporations do now not interact stakeholders. The best exception is agency 3. They proportion statistics
with researchers within the middle phase under strict conditions of secrecy, criminal contracts and
management in the preliminary section of the innovation process. In most situations, however, agencies
do not engage stakeholders like NGOs in the product improvement section. One of the motives is that

11 | P a g e
stakeholders do not possess the technological competency to help the product improvement phase. In line
with the agencies, the stakeholders additionally demand this, they prefer to live unbiased and take an
external and vital attitude, instead of being worried in the product improvement section. This holds for
NGOs however additionally for research institutes.

In case the innovation could be very latest or issues a new place, some organizations do a further take a
look at within the final commercialization phase. Organization 2 for example enables health businesses to
shape an opinion concerning the new product before its miles truly launched available on the market.
While the stakeholders deliver up important problems on this final segment, it is even possible that the
remark of the stakeholder has an effect on the composition or marketplace release of the brand new
product. This example indicates that a few agencies are obvious about, engage with and are attentive to
stakeholders’ approximately new improvements for the duration of the very last segment of the
innovation method, although stakeholder engagement in this segment also can be seen as part of the wider
marketing approach of the company.

It may be concluded that the corporations in our sample interact stakeholders to a positive quantity in
their innovation techniques, even though this engagement of stakeholders like NGOs especially takes
region at a strategic stage, in preference to on the product level and in particular within the first segment
of the innovation process. Stakeholders like research institutes can also be engaged in the course of the
center segment of the innovation process in some cases, however below strict restrictions of management.

5. Conclusions

In this paper, we asked how a long way companies that make contributions to the solution of the grand
challenges of our time and have interaction stakeholders to acquire their goals – and therefore have the
disposition to innovate in an extra responsible way – are shifting inside the course of the perfect of mutual
responsiveness amongst stakeholders, as it's miles stated in the literature on innovation. The principle
studies questions were to what volume organizations have interaction stakeholders in each segment of the
innovation method, what are the crucial issues in regards to stakeholder engagement corporations enjoy
and the way they cope with those issues.

Based totally on the findings on this research, it is able to be concluded that, despite the fact that modern
meals organizations contribute at once or in a roundabout way to the solution of the grand demanding
situations of our time and despite the fact that they simply interact stakeholders to gain their targets, they
fall drastically quick of the suitable of mutual responsiveness amongst stakeholders. Agencies interact
stakeholders specifically inside the first section of innovation and at a strategic stage. In this first phase,

12 | P a g e
groups are to a sure volume transparent, interactive and once in a while conscious of the demands of their
stakeholders. The fourth feature of SEDIE – Mutual Responsibility – isn't always diagnosed through the
meals groups and the stakeholders worried in this research. Inside the center section wherein the real
innovation takes vicinity, stakeholders aren't engaged or handiest in a completely restricted manner.
Within the final phase, organizations engage stakeholders once more through being obvious and through
interacting with them, even though this form of stakeholder engagement can also be visible as part of the
wider marketing approach of the company.

This gap between the literature and the consequences of this research has raised the query why companies
that may be considered as having the disposition to innovate in a more responsible way are failing to gain
this best. A possible rationalization may be determined in unique critical issues with reference to
stakeholder engagement in the context of commercial or private area associated innovation practices.

Moreover, extra research is wanted concerning the overlap and differences among special stakeholders –
NGOs and research institutes for instance – and the variations inside the context of incremental as
opposed to extra disruptive improvements. Sooner or later, studies need to be prolonged to different
sectors and different sorts of stakeholders; department groups for instance may be capable of make
agreements regarding innovation on behalf of an entire branch or area. considering that several meals
groups rejected the invitation to enroll in this research, a lot more intensive studies is needed on the
important issues with reference to SEDIE as properly. On this respect, the results of this research are a
first contribution to the finding new ways to engage stakeholders in innovation ecosystem.

References
1. Annansingh, F. and M.B. Nunes, 2005. Validating interpretivist research: using a cross-sectional
survey to validate case-study elicitation of knowledge leakage risks associated with the use of
virtual reality models. Proceedings of the 4th European Conference on Research Methodology for
Business and Management Studies. Academic Publishers Limited, Reading, UK.
2. Ayuso, S., M.A. Rodriguez and J.E. Ricart, 2006. Using stakeholder dialogue as a source for new
ideas: a dynamic capability underlying sustainable innovation. Corporate Governance, 6(4): 475-
490
3. Andriof, J. and S. Waddock, 2002. Unfolding stakeholder engagement. In: Andriof, J., S.
Waddock, B. Husted and R.S. Sutherland (eds.) Unfolding stakeholder thinking: theory,
responsibility and engagement. Greenleaf, Sheffield, UK, pp. 19-42.
4. Bessant, J., 2013. Innovation in the twenty-first century. In: Owen, R., J. Bessant and M. Heintz
(eds.) Responsible Innovation. Wiley, New York, NY, USA, 1-26.

13 | P a g e
 5. Bstieler, L., 2006. Trust formation in collaborative new product development. Journal of Product
Innovation Management, 23(1): 56-72.
6. Bigliardi, B. and F. Galati, 2013. Models of adoption of open innovation within the food industry.
Trends in Food Science and Technology, 30(1): 16-26.
7. Blok, V., 2014a. Look who’s talking: responsible innovation, the paradox of dialogue and the
voice of the other in communication and negotiation processes. Journal of Responsible
Innovation, 1(2): 171-190.
8. Blok, V., 2014b. Identity, unity and difference in cross-sector partnerships for sustainable
development. Philosophy of Management, 13(2): 53-74.
9. 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: Van
den Hoven, J., E.J. Koops, H.A. Romijn, T.E. Swierstra and I. Oosterlaken (eds.) Responsible
innovation: issues in conceptualization, governance and implementation. Springer, Dordrecht, the
Netherlands, pp. 19-35.
10. Boeije, H., 2010. Analysis in qualitative research. SAGE, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
11. Bogers, M., 2011. The open innovation paradox: knowledge sharing and protection in R&D
Collaborations. European journal of Innovation Management, 14(1): 93-117.
12. Bos, J., V. Blok and R. Van Tulder, 2013. From confrontation to partnership: the role of a Dutch
non-governmental organization in co-creating a market to address the issue of animal welfare.
International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, 16(A): 69-75.
13. Brickson, S.L., 2007. Organizational identity orientation: the genesis of the role of the firm and
distinct forms of social value. Academy of Management Review, 32(3): 864-888.
14. Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby and M. Middleton Stone, 2006. The design and implementation of
cross-sector collaborations: propositions from the literature. Public Management Review, 66(s1):
44-55.
15. Burchell, J. and J. Cook, 2006. It’s good to talk? Examining attitudes towards corporate social
responsibility dialogue and engagement processes. Business Ethics: A European Review, 15(2):
154-170.
16. Burchell, J. and J. Cook, 2008. Stakeholder dialogue and organizational learning: changing
relationships between companies and NGOs. Business Ethics: A European Review Chesbrough,
H., 2003. Open innovation: the new imperative for creating and proofing from technology.
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA, USA.
17. Chesbrough, H., 2006. Open innovation. Researching a new paradigm. Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, USA.

14 | P a g e
 18. Chilvers, J., 2008. Environmental risk, uncertainty, and participation: mapping an emergent
epistemic community. Environment and Planning, 40(2): 2990-3008.
19. Cooper, R.G., 1990. Stage-gate systems – a new tool for managing new products. Business
Horizons, 33(3): 44-54.
20. Cooper, R.G., 2001. Winning at new products – accelerating the process from idea to launch.
Perseus Publishing, Cambridge, MA, USA.
21. Cooper, R.G., 2008. Perspective: the stage-gates idea-to-launch process – update, what’s new,
and nex gen systems. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3): 213-232.
22. Cooper, R.G., S.J. Edgett and E.J. Kleinschmidt, 2002. Optimizing the stage-gate process: what
best practice companies do. Research- Technology Management, 45(6): 43-49.
23. Delgado, A., K.L. Kjølberg and F. Wickson, 2010. Public engagement coming of age: from
theory to practice in STS encounters with nanotechnology. Public Understanding of Science,
20(6): 826-845.
24. Dentoni, D., V. Blok, T. Lans and R. Wesselink, 2012. Developing human capital for agri-food
firms’multi-stakeholder interactions. International Food and Agribusiness Management Review,
15: 153-166.
25. Donaldson, T. and L.E. Preston, 1995. The stakeholder theory of the corporation: concepts,
evidence, and implications. Academy of Management Review, 20(1): 65-91.
26. Dutta, D.K. and M.M. Crossan, 2005. The nature of entrepreneurial opportunities: understanding
the process using the 41 organizational learning framework. Entrepreneurship Theory and
Practice, 29: 425-49.
27. European Commission, 2013. Options for strengthening responsible research and innovation.
Available at: http://tinyurl. com/o7h3sce.
28. Freeman, R.E., 1984. Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 292 pp.
29. Flipse, S.M., 2012. Enhancing socially responsible innovation in industry. practical use for
considerations of social and ethical aspects in industrial life sciences and technology. PhD thesis,
Delft University, Delft, the Netherlands.
30. Gao, S.S. and J.J. Zhang, 2006. Stakeholder engagement, social auditing and corporate
sustainability. Business Process Management Journal, 12(6): 722-740.
31. Global Environmental Management Initiative (GEMI) and Environmental Defence Fund, 2008.
Guide to successful corporate-NGO partnerships. GEMI, New York, USA.
32. Geoghegan-Quinn, M., 2012. Opening session at the science in dialogue conference, 23 April
2012, Odense, Denmark. Available at: http://tinyurl.com/pcdgqpk.

15 | P a g e
 33. Googins, B.K. and S.A. Rochlin, 2000. Creating the partnership society: understanding the
rhetoric and reality of cross-sectoral partnerships. Business and society review, 105(1): 127-144.
34. Gould, R.W., 2012. Open innovation and stakeholder engagement. Journal of Technology
Management and Innovation, 7(3): 1-11.
35. Greenwood, M., 2007. Stakeholder engagement: beyond the myth of corporate responsibility.
Journal of Business Ethics, 74(4): 315-327.
36. Harrison, J.S., D.A. Bosse and R.A. Phillips, 2010. Managing for stakeholders, stakeholder utility
functions, and competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 31(1): 58-74.
37. Holmes, S. and P. Smart, 2009. Exploring open innovation practice in firm-nonprofit
engagements: a corporate social responsibility perspective. R and D Management, 39(4): 394-
409.
38. Islam, A.M., 2012. Methods of open innovation knowledge sharing risk reduction: a case study.
International Journal of e-Education, e-Business, e-Management and e-Learning, 2(4): 294-297.
39. Jackson, R., F. Barbagallo and H. Hastem, 2005. Strengths of public dialogue on science-related
issues. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 8(3): 349-358.
40. Kaptein, M. and R. Van Tulder, 2003. Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business and
society review, 108(2): 203-224.
41. Lawson, B., K.J. Petersen, P.D. Cousins and R.B. Handfield, 2009. Knowledge sharing in
interorganizational product development teams: the effect of formal and informal socialization
mechanisms. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(2): 156-172.
42. Lezaun, E.J. and L. Soneryd, 2007. Consulting citizens: technologies of elicitation and the
mobility of publics. Public Understanding of Science, 16(3): 279-297.
43. Luoma, T., J. Paasi and K. Valkokari, 2010. Intellectual property in inter-organisational
relationships – findings from an interview study. International Journal of Innovation
Management, 14(3): 399-414.
44. Macnaghten, P. and R. Owen, 2011. Environmental science: good governance for
geoengineering. Nature, 479(7373): 293-293.
45. MATTER, 2011. A report on responsible research and innovation. Available at:
http://tinyurl.com/q9mgm67.
46. Mohamed, S., D. Mynors, A. Grantham, K. Walsh and P. Chan, 2006. Understanding one aspect
of the knowledge leakage concept: people. Proceedings of the European and Mediterranean
Conference on Information Systems (EMCIS), 6-7 July 2006, Costa Blanca, Spain

16 | P a g e
 47. Mohr, J. and R. Spekman, 1994. Characteristics of partnership success: partnership attributes,
communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal,
15(2): 135-152.
48. Owen, R. and N. Goldberg, 2010. Responsible innovation: a pilot study with the U.K.
engineering and physical sciences research council. Risk Analysis, 30(11): 1699-1707.
49. 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.
50. Pavie, X., V. Scholten and D. Carthy, 2014. Responsible innovation. From concept to practice.
World Scientific, Singapore.
51. Seitanidi, M.M. and A. Crane, 2008. Implementing CSR through partnerships: understanding the
selection, design and institutionalisation of nonprofit-business partnerships. Journal of Business
Ethics, 85(2): 413-429.
52. Selsky, J.W. and B. Parker, 2010. Platforms for cross-sector social partnerships: prospective
sensemaking devices for social benefit. Journal of Business Ethics, 94(1): 21-37.
53. Sharma, S., 2005. Through the lens of managerial interpretations: stakeholder engagement,
organizational knowledge and innovation. In: Sharma, S., J.A. Aragón-Correa (eds.)
Environmental strategy and competitive advantage. Edward Elgar Academic Publishing,
Northhampton, UK, pp. 49-70.
54. Van den Hove, J., J. McGlade, P. Mottet and M.H. Depledge, 2012. The innovation union: a
perfect means to confused ends? Environmental Science and Policy, 16: 73-80.
55. Van Huijstee, M.M., M. Francken and P. Leroy, 2007. Partnerships for sustainable development:
a review of current literature. Environmental Sciences, 4(2): 75-89.
56. 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.

Authors

Dr. Rahul Wagh* (First Author)

rahulwagh.sknssbm@sinhgad.edu
Mobile: 7776920277
Working as Assistant Professor in S.K.N. Sinhgad School of Business Management since August 2011. Completed 8 years
and 5 months of service in this institute. Awarded Ph.D. by North Maharashtra University. Successfully completed
Orientation Programme of UGC-HRDC. Presented research papers in national and international conferences including IIM
Lucknow and participated in case study conference in IIM, Banglore. Also participated in the FDP on Data Analysis and
Research Design organized by IIM, Kozikode and completed four months fill time residential FDP at IIM Ahmedabad.

Prof. Swapnil Patil** (Second Author)

17 | P a g e
 swapnilpatil.sknssbm@sinhgad.edu
Mobile: 8793749237
Working as Assistant Professor in S.K.N. Sinhgad School of Business Management since January 2017. Completed 2 years
and 2 months of service in this institute. Pursuing Ph.D. by Savitribai Phule Pune University. Currently handling the
responsibility of Training and Placement Coordinator.

Prof. Ajita More** (Second Author)

ajeetamore.sknssbm@sinhgad.edu
Mobile: 9545534004
Ajita More is a MBA-HR with 11 years of industry experience in organisations like Thermax and Future Group. She is
currently working in S.K.N. Sinhgad School of Business Management as Assistant Professor. Her area of interest are
Entrepreneurship, Human Resources Management, Employee Relations and Competency Mapping. She is associated with
National HRD as a Life Member.

Prof. Jyoti Borde** (Second Author)

Mobile: 9158807788
Jyotiborde.sknssbm@sinhgad.edu
Prof. Jyoti Borde is a MBA-HR with 4 years of industry experience in organizations’ like Varroc and Nirlep. She is
currently working in S.K.N. Sinhgad School of Business Management as Assistant Professor. Her areas of interest are
Human Resources Management, Employee Relations and Advance MS-Excel Techniques.

18 | P a g e