Dear Colleagues, 

During the last few decades, increasing attention has been paid to innovation systems literature, evidencing the importance of spatially-bounded systems of innovation made up of actors, networks, and institutions. In particular, the innovation system approach is a different way to look at innovation, complementing and going beyond the firm-level unit of analysis. Literature started with the notion of a National System of Innovation (NSI; Freeman, 1987; Lundvall, 1992); then, borrowing from NSI, scholars elaborated the idea of Regional Innovation Systems (RISs; e.g., Cooke, 1996; Cooke and Morgan, 1994), describing both the system-based and spatially–bounded specificities for innovation, that is, zooming into the contextual factors and locational specificities that facilitate firm innovation. In parallel, Industrial District literature was also developed (Becattini, 1979), taking off in the 1980s (e.g., Brusco, 1982; Piore and Sable, 1984; Bellandi, 1989; Becattini, 1990) and later becoming popularized by Porter’s (1998) cluster concept. Today, the three perspectives to understand innovation systems persist, especially for clusters/industrial districts (e.g., Hervas-Oliver et al., 2017; Belussi and Hervas-Oliver, 2018; Lazzeretti et al., 2019; Speldekamp et al., 2020) and the RIS perspective (e.g., Cooke, 2016; Isaksen, Todtling, and Trippl; 2018; Hassink et al., 2019) and less intensively at the NSI strand (e.g., Acs, Audretsch, Lehmann and Licht, 2017). All in all, this spatially-bounded literature complements and overlaps with that of firm innovation (e.g., Jensen et al., 2007; Parrilli and Heras, 2016; Haus-Reve et al., 2019).

Over the last few years, from the scholarly, professional, and policymaker spheres, sustainability and digitization have emerged to posit a challenge to the established innovation system perspective, adding new topics that reflect the evolution of technology and society. In this context, sustainability refers to environmental, social, and governance components, aiming at creating positive benefits and reducing negative ones to the environment, society and other stakeholders, balancing thus environmental and social performance with economic performance and using a stakeholder perspective (Bansal and Song, 2017; Bocken, Short, Rana and Evans, 2014; Freeman, 1984). Recent studies on innovation systems and sustainability, such as university-industry interactions (e.g., Di Maria et al., 2019), sustainability practices in Italian wine clusters (De Steur et al., 2020) or automotive clusters (Chen et al., 2020), among others, have started recently to pave the way.

As regards digitization, we mean utilizing digital technologies to improve business (Fitzgerald et al., 2014), transforming entire businesses, companies, industries, and platforms through the introduction of digital technologies and paradigms such as Artificial Intelligence, Cloud computing, Internet of Things, Big Data, and other Industry 4.0 digital enablers. Recent studies have presented initiatives to theorize on the digitization of innovation (Nambisan et al., 2019), especially in clusters/industrial districts (e.g., Bellandi and De Propris, 2017), where empirical evidence is already obtained (e.g., Hervas-Oliver et al., 2019) but scant. 

Theory and empirics, however, are not abundant in those particular topics. In this specific context, it turns out to be important that researchers come up with new evidence and knowledge that may contribute to providing a better understanding of these new phenomena and thus facilitate knowledge and insights for improving our understanding of sustainability-oriented innovation and digitization in those innovation systems and their firms. To this end, it will be of great interest to examine in depth the dynamics and interactions of RIS and clusters, along with their firms, networks, and institutions throughout sustainability and digitization topics. Case studies, theoretical developments, qualitative and quantitative research, as well as literature reviews, addressing innovation systems and their firms, are all welcome at either the macro-, meso- or the micro-level of analysis. Especially studies of firms at the micro-unit of analysis are welcome.

This Special Issue is focused on, but not limited to, the following topics:

• Clusters and sustainability;
• Clusters and digitization or Industry 4.0;
• Cluster firms and new business models built upon sustainability (eco-innovation, circular economy, etc.) and digitization (Industry 4.0 digital enablers);
• Firms’ innovation and sustainability in innovation systems;
• Firms’ innovation and digitization in innovation systems;
• The link between modes of innovation, types of innovation and sustainability;
• Clusters and innovation in the framework of circular economy, sustainability, and digitization;
• University–industry collaboration for sustainability and/or digitization;
• Digitization and sustainability in RIS;
• Place-based Innovation policy for sustainability in clusters and RIS;
• Place-based Innovation policy for digitization in clusters and RIS;
• The link between sustainability, digitization, innovation and spatially-bounded innovation systems.

References:

1. Acs, Z.J.; Audretsch, D.B.; Lehmann, E.E.; Licht, G. National systems of innovation. J. Technol. Transf. 2017, 42, 997–1008.
2. Bansal, P.; Song, H.-C. Similar But Not the Same: Differentiating Corporate Sustainability from Corporate Responsibility. Acad. Manag. Ann. 2017, 11, 105–149, doi:10.5465/annals.2015.0095.
3. Becattini, G. The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. Rev. D’économie Ind. 2017, 13–32, doi:10.4000/rei.6507.
4. Becattini, G. Dal’settore ’industriale al’ distretto’industriale. Alcune considerazioni sull’unità d’indagine dell’economia industriale. Rivista di economia e politica industriale, 1979, 1, 7–21.
5. Bellandi, M. The role of small firms in the development of Italian manufacturing industry. In Small Firms and Industrial Districts in Italy; Routledge: London, UK, 1989; pp. 31–62.
6. Bellandi, M.; De Propris, L. New forms of industrial districts. Econ. e Politi.-Ind. 2017, 44, 411–427, doi:10.1007/s40812-017-0082-9.
7. Belussi, F.; Hervás-Oliver, J.L. Introduction: Unfolding cluster and industrial district evolution: Into the future. In Unfolding Cluster Evolution; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 29–36.
8. Belussi, F.; Hervás-Oliver, J.L. Agglomeration and Firm Performance; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2018.
9. Bocken, N.; Short, S.; Rana, P.; Evans, S. A literature and practice review to develop sustainable business model archetypes. J. Clean. Prod. 2014, 65, 42–56, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2013.11.039.
10. Brusco, S. The Emilian model: Productive decentralisation and social integration. Camb. J. Econ. 1982, 6, 167–184, doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.cje.a035506.
11. Chen, X.; Wang, E.; Miao, C.; Ji, L.; Pan, S. Industrial Clusters as Drivers of Sustainable Regional Economic Development? An Analysis of an Automotive Cluster from the Perspective of Firms’ Role. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2848, doi:10.3390/su12072848.
12. Cooke, P. Regional innovation systems: Competitive regulation in the new Europe. Geoforum 1992, 23, 365–382, doi:10.1016/0016-7185(92)90048-9.
13. Cooke, P. Introduction. Regional innovation systems – An evolutionary approach. In Regional Innovation Systems; Cooke, P., Heidenreich, M., Braczyk, H.-J., Eds.; The role of governance in a globalised world 2nd ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–18.
14. Cooke, P. The virtues of variety in regional innovation systems and entrepreneurial ecosystems. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2016, 2, 13–19, doi:10.1186/s40852-016-0036-x.
15. Cooke, P. Building a twenty‐first century regional economy in Emilia‐Romagna. Eur. Plan. Stud. 1996, 4, 53–62, doi:10.1080/09654319608720329.
16. De Steur, H.; Temmerman, H.; Gellynck, X.; Canavari, M. Drivers, adoption, and evaluation of sustainability practices in Italian wine SMEs. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2020, 29, 744–762, doi:10.1002/bse.2436.
17. Di Maria, E.; De Marchi, V.; Spraul, K. Who benefits from university–industry collaboration for environmental sustainability? Int. J. Sustain. High. Educ. 2019, 20, 1022–1041, doi:10.1108/ijshe-10-2018-0172.
18. Fitzgerald, M.; Kruschwitz, N.; Bonnet, D.; Welch, M. Embracing digital technology: A new strategic imperative. MIT Sloan Manag. Rev. 2014, 55, 1.
19. Freeman, C. Technical Innovation, Diffusion, and Long Cycles of Economic Development. In The Long-Wave Debate; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 1987; pp. 295–309.
20. Freeman, R.E. Stakeholder Management: Framework and Philosophy; Cambridge University Press (CUP): Cambridge, UK, 2015; pp. 52–82.
21. Hassink, R.; Isaksen, A.; Trippl, M. Towards a comprehensive understanding of new regional industrial path development. Reg. Stud. 2019, 53, 1636–1645, doi:10.1080/00343404.2019.1566704.
22. Haus-Reve, S.; Fitjar, R.D.; Rodríguez-Pose, A. Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in Norway. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 1476–1486, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.02.008.
23. Haus-Reve, S.; Fitjar, R.D.; Rodríguez-Pose, A. Does combining different types of collaboration always benefit firms? Collaboration, complementarity and product innovation in Norway. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 1476–1486, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.02.008.
24. Hervas-Oliver, J.-L.; Estelles-Miguel, S.; Mallol-Gasch, G.; Boix-Palomero, J. A place-based policy for promoting Industry 4.0: The case of the Castellon ceramic tile district. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 1838–1856, doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1642855.
25. Hervas-Oliver, J.-L.; Lleo, M.; Cervelló-Royo, R. The dynamics of cluster entrepreneurship: Knowledge legacy from parents or agglomeration effects? The case of the Castellon ceramic tile district. Res. Policy 2017, 46, 73–92, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.10.006.
26. Isaksen, A.; Trippl, M. Path development in different regional innovation systems: A conceptual analysis. In Innovation Drivers and Regional Innovation Strategies; Parrilli, M.D., Fitjar, R.D., Rodríguez-Pose, A., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2016; pp. 66–84.
27. Isaksen, A.; Tödtling, F.; Trippl, M. Innovation Policies for Regional Structural Change: Combining Actor-Based and System-Based Strategies. In New Avenues for Regional Innovation Systems-Theoretical Advances, Empirical Cases and Policy Lessons; Springer Science and Business Media LLC: Berlin, Germany, 2018; pp. 221–238.
28. Jensen, M.B.; Johnson, B.; Lorenz, E.; Lundvall, B.Å. Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation. Res. Policy 2007, 36, 680–693, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.006.
29. Kern, F.; Rogge, K.S.; Howlett, M. Policy mixes for sustainability transitions: New approaches and insights through bridging innovation and policy studies. Res. Policy 2019, 48, 103832, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2019.103832.
30. Lazzeretti, L.; Capone, F.; Caloffi, A.; Sedita, S.R. Rethinking clusters. Towards a new research agenda for cluster research. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 1879–1903, doi:10.1080/09654313.2019.1650899.
31. Lundvall, B. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter: London, UK, 1992.
32. Nambisan, S. Digital Entrepreneurship: Toward a Digital Technology Perspective of Entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pr. 2017, 41, 1029–1055, doi:10.1111/etap.12254.
33. Parrilli, M.D.; Alcalde-Heras, H. STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and context-specific nuances. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 747–756, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.001.
34. Parrilli, M.D.; Alcalde-Heras, H. STI and DUI innovation modes: Scientific-technological and context-specific nuances. Res. Policy 2016, 45, 747–756, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2016.01.001.
35. Ingerman, S.H.; Piore, M.J.; Sabel, C.F. The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. Labour/Le Trav. 1987, 20, 302, doi:10.2307/25142899.
36. E. Porter, M. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harv. Bus. Rev. 1998, 76, 77–90.
37. Smith, A.; Voß, J.-P.; Grin, J. Innovation studies and sustainability transitions: The allure of the multi-level perspective and its challenges. Res. Policy 2010, 39, 435–448, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.023.
38. Speldekamp, D.; Knoben, J.; Saka-Helmhout, A. Clusters and firm-level innovation: A configurational analysis of agglomeration, network and institutional advantages in European aerospace. Res. Policy 2020, 49, 103921, doi:10.1016/j.respol.2020.103921. 

Prof. Dr. Jose Luis Hervas Oliver
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Sustainability is an international peer-reviewed open access semimonthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 2400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• innovation
• clusters
• regions
• sustainability
• digitization
• Industry 4.0.
• RIS
• innovation modes
• innovation policy