Elements of socially sustainable innovation processes in Finnish urban development

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to study socially sustainable innovation processes in urban development. Which elements can be identified to support socially sustainable innovation processes in urban development and how were the elements realized in urban innovation processes in Finland in 2013 and 2015 are the research questions.According to the literature review, socially sustainable innovation processes include an open and interactive development approach, resident and user-driven involvement, communication, learning and feedback, and impact assessment. To track the elements in practice a qualitative approach using case-based research was conducted.The results reveal that urban development processes in Finland could not be considered socially sustainable because the elements are realized differently.Although many current processes include resident participation, impact assessment is lacking. The study also presents a strategy for how to create more socially sustainable urban innovation processes.

Employee performance under transformational leadership and organizational citizenship behavior: A mediated model

“…Regarding a positively significant relationship between adopting a TL style and this being a predictor influencing employees' OCB, similar outcomes have been found in prior literature ( Bass, 1985 ). Similarly, Paalanen and Hyypiä (2008) concluded that transformational leaders promote OCB among their workers. Other studies have also shown a link between a TL style and OCB and exchanging knowledge among employees ( Lin et al., 2012 ; Moghadam et al., 2013 ).…”

The evolution of N‐helix of the regional innovation system: Implications for sustainability

“…The notion of social sustainability has increasingly become a central element of sustainable development in the context of regional economic development (Parjanen et al, 2018). Taking a stakeholder perspective, regional stakeholders in the N-helix model (e.g., civil society, users, and media) engage in the innovation process (Carayannis & Campbell, 2011;Ivanova, 2014;Miller et al, 2014).…”

“…The inclusion of wider regional stakeholders such as civil society flourishes the multiplicity as well as interlinked networks between the economic, technological, institutional, and social dimensions. Particularly, the inclusion of social dimension in a RIS is supported by interactive development process, user-driven involvement, and communication such as knowledge transfer and infusion through social networks within a region (Parjanen et al, 2018). Thus, taking the social aspect on the RIS helps to resolve complex social problems in a region, thereby facilitating an economically, technologically, and "socially" sustainable RIS.…”

“…This underlies that the regional users' engagement in the RIS serves as an important source of regional innovations, which is undermined in the previous TH literature. Hence, it is witnessed that the TH scholarly work evolves to N‐helix by emphasizing social innovations through interactions among the users, the public and the civil society (as an additional innovation creating actor) with other TH actors in the RIS (Parjanen, Hyypiä, Martikainen, & Hennala, 2018).…”

Building an open innovation platform as a part of city renewal initiatives

“…For the purposes of this research, innovation platforms are understood as strategic approaches to building, organizing and enhancing innovation networks (Consoli & Patrucco, 2008;Ojasalo & Tähtinen, 2016;Parjanen & Hyypiä, 2018). In city renewal, there has been a shift toward a more integrated approach which link the stimulation of economic activity and environmental improvements with social and cultural elements (Colantonio & Dixon, 2009;Parjanen et al, 2019) indicating the need for new, innovative ideas of different stakeholders.…”