To effectively develop, implement, and scale social innovations, innovation orchestrators must select appropriate innovation strategies. We propose that (responsible) innovation strategies should be tailored to the complexity of the problem they aim to address to avoid causing harm to society and the environment and instead regenerate them. Yet, tailoring innovation strategies to problem complexity remains challenging. In this paper, we ask how orchestrators can differentiate innovation problems and adapt their strategies accordingly. Through a mixed-method approach, incorporating action learning and a quasi-experimental design with pre-and post-tests, we co-developed an innovation problem-classification framework alongside a team of seasoned innovation orchestrators. We subsequently tested the framework's efficacy across three distinct participant groups: (1) innovation orchestrators with over five years of experience, (2) innovation orchestrators with 0-5 years of experience, and (3) entrepreneurship students with no orchestration experience. Our findings demonstrate that the training has positive significant effects on the accuracy of classification of innovation problem typologies. We provide insights into innovation problem classification and education practices to enhance responsible social innovation. @en

We are witnessing two pivotal transitions: the shift towards a low-carbon economy and the rapid digitalization of our landscape. While the first is progressing too slowly and needs to accelerate, the second is surging forward with unstoppable momentum, transforming our daily lives in unprecedented ways.

Given the different paces of these transitions, failing to innovate symbiotic solutions that harmonize both transitions while enhancing their generative synergies is a recipe for disaster. Sustainability-driven technologies are quickly becoming outdated, and organizations are experiencing lock-ins and innovation inertia, challenging their ability to reinvest and redesign, requiring them to reorganize at an unbearable pace.

We are already observing this phenomenon unfolding in the energy transition and digitalization of the built environment. Construction companies are under pressure to lower their emissions. As they grapple with meeting environmental targets like carbon and nitrogen reductions, the advent of Digital Twins offers the construction industry new opportunities to manage buildings more efficiently throughout their lifecycle and beyond. Yet, many still struggle to embrace this digital innovation shift: to digitalize or not digitalize buildings?

While the purposeful implementation of digital tools to achieve sustainability outcomes is promising, it may also lead to unintended consequences. In what follows, we argue that if these potential consequences are not addressed from the outset, digital sustainability could undermine social and environmental outcomes rather than enhance them.
@en

To bridge the digital divide and provide high-quality, reliable, and secure internet access and digital services to rural areas in Europe, there is a pressing need for new business models. Currently, many existing models are not viable in rural settings due to insufficient return on investment for network or telecom operators, which hampers the deployment of broadband infrastructure (Cavalcante et al., 2021). As a result, rural areas face inadequate digital infrastructure, impeding the roll-out and functioning of digital services (Stojanova et al., 2022). Moreso, digital services in rural areas often suffer from reliability issues, lack scalability, and struggle with interoperability due to time constraints, limited technological capabilities, and a shortage of skilled personnel for digital service development, leading to high operational and maintenance costs (Lee, 2019; Linde et al., 2023). In addition, concerns surrounding data security and trust, coupled with digital illiteracy in rural communities, as well as an overall low population density in rural areas contribute to a lack of demand for digital services (Yaacoub & Alouini, 2020; Linde et al., 2023; Palattella et al., 2016). All-inall, these challenges lead to an uncertain and unfavourable investment climate for digital services (Stojanova et al., 2022). [...]@en

Acknowledging the fundamental role of financing opportunities, this report (D.6.5) has multiple goals. First, D6.5 is aimed at providing an overview of the financial mechanisms, schemes, and resources that could play a role in accelerating the implementation of sustainable plus energy neighbourhoods (SPENs) across the four different countries in which the demo sites are situated. Second, it strives to propose a strategy to attract investors to realize the innovation(s) needed in a SPEN. And third, it consists of policy recommendations regarding the barriers and opportunities of the available financial schemes. These elements are particularly important for the realization of SPENs, since it is widely acknowledged that many investors, both public and private, are looking for new green and sustainable investment opportunities but these are often challenging to pursue due to the stakeholder diversity and complexity of innovations involved in the realization of a SPEN.@en

In recent years, numerous public and private organizations have collaborated to address societal challenges through mission-driven innovation. Despite the many initiatives started with to tackle these challenges, many fail to achieve the impact they ought to deliver. Collaboration leaders frequently struggle to comprehend the complexity of their problem contexts deeply, hindering the development of effective solution strategies. Furthermore, the contexts and ecosystems of these mission-driven collaborations vary significantly. For instance, the shift to preventive healthcare presents different challenges compared to transitioning to a processing industry capable of managing periods of abundant renewable electrical energy. This study identifies various dimensions that can help delineate the complexity of these problems. These dimensions include convergent or divergent views on problems and solutions, ecosystem structure, stakeholder complexity, and stakeholder interdependence.@en