Editing Innovation (section)

== Goals and failures of innovation ==
Scholars have argued that the main purpose for innovation today is [[profit maximization]] and [[Valorisation|capital valorisation]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last=MacKenzie |first=Donald |date=1984 |title=Marx and the Machine |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/3104202 |journal=Technology and Culture |volume=25 |issue=3 |pages=473–502 |doi=10.2307/3104202 |jstor=3104202 |s2cid=113106929 |issn=0040-165X}}</ref><ref name=":6"/> Consequently, programs of organizational innovation are typically tightly linked to organizational goals and growth objectives, to the [[business plan]], and to [[Market (economics)|market]] [[Competition (companies)|competitive positioning]]. Davila et al. (2006) note, "Companies cannot grow through cost reduction and reengineering alone... Innovation is the key element in providing aggressive top-line growth, and for increasing bottom-line results".<ref name="Making Innovation Work">Davila, T., Epstein, M. J., and Shelton, R. (2006). "Making Innovation Work: How to Manage It, Measure It, and Profit from It." Upper Saddle River: Wharton School Publishing.</ref> One survey across a large number of manufacturing and services organizations found that systematic programs of organizational innovation are most frequently driven by: improved [[quality (business)|quality]], creation of new [[Market (economics)|market]]s, extension of the [[product (business)|product]] range, reduced [[labor cost]]s, improved [[production process]]es, reduced materials cost, reduced [[environmental damage]], replacement of [[product (business)|product]]s/[[Service (economics)|services]], reduced [[energy]] consumption, and conformance to [[regulation]]s.<ref name="Making Innovation Work" />

Different goals are appropriate for different products, processes, and services. According to Andrea Vaona and Mario Pianta, some example goals of innovation could stem from two different types of technological strategies: ''technological competitiveness'' and ''active price competitiveness''. ''Technological competitiveness'' may have a tendency to be pursued by smaller firms and can be characterized as "efforts for market-oriented innovation, such as a strategy of market expansion and patenting activity."<ref name=":3">{{Cite journal|last1=Vaona|first1=Andrea|last2=Pianta|first2=Mario|date=March 2008|title=Firm Size and Innovation in European Manufacturing|url=http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11187-006-9043-9|journal=Small Business Economics|language=en|volume=30|issue=3|pages=283–299|doi=10.1007/s11187-006-9043-9|issn=0921-898X|hdl=10419/3843|s2cid=153525567|hdl-access=free}}</ref> On the other hand, ''active price competitiveness'' is geared toward process innovations that lead to efficiency and flexibility, which tend to be pursued by large, established firms as they seek to expand their market foothold.<ref name=":3" /> Whether innovation goals are successfully achieved or otherwise depends greatly on the environment prevailing in the organization.<ref>{{cite journal|doi=10.1287/mnsc.35.5.597|title=Innovative and Noninnovative Small Firms: Types and Characteristics|journal=Management Science|volume=35|issue=5|pages=597–606|year=1989|last1=Khan|first1=Arshad M.|last2=Manopichetwattana|first2=V.}}</ref>

=== Organization-internal innovation failures ===
Failure of organizational innovation programs has been widely researched and the causes vary considerably. Some causes are external to the organization and outside its influence of control. Others are internal and ultimately within the control of the organization. Internal causes of failure can be divided into causes associated with the cultural infrastructure and causes associated with the innovation process itself. David O'Sullivan wrote that causes of failure within the innovation process in most organizations can be distilled into five types: poor goal definition, poor alignment of actions to goals, poor participation in teams, poor monitoring of results, and poor communication and [[access to information]].<ref>{{cite journal|author=O'Sullivan, David |year=2002|title=Framework for Managing Development in the Networked Organisations|journal=Journal of Computers in Industry|volume= 47|issue=1|pages=77–88|doi=10.1016/S0166-3615(01)00135-X}}</ref>

=== Environmental and social innovation failures ===
Innovation is generally framed as an inherently positive force, delivering growth and prosperity for all, and is often deemed as both inevitable and unstoppable.<ref name=":6"/> In this sense, future innovations are often hailed as solutions to current problems, such as [[climate change]]. This business-as-usual approach would mean continued and increased [[globalization]] as well as quick innovation cycles which supposedly will maximize the competitiveness of processes, in the end leading to [[Eco-economic decoupling]] or [[Green growth]]. Yet, it is unclear whether innovative solutions will be capable of solving the climate crisis: According to Mario Giampietro and [[Silvio Funtowicz]] (2020), this positive framing of innovation "demonstrates [a] lack of understanding of the biophysical roots of the economic process and the seriousness of the sustainability crisis".<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Giampietro |first1=Mario |last2=Funtowicz |first2=Silvio O. |date=2020-07-01 |title=From elite folk science to the policy legend of the circular economy |journal=Environmental Science & Policy |volume=109 |pages=64–72 |doi=10.1016/j.envsci.2020.04.012 |issn=1462-9011|doi-access=free |bibcode=2020ESPol.109...64G |hdl=11250/2730163 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> This is due to the fact that innovation can be understood in its specific historic and cultural context: The prevailing hegemonic view on innovation, as emphasized by Ben Robra et al. (2023), aligns closely with capitalist mode of production, shown by the mantra of 'innovate or die.'<ref name=":6">{{Cite journal |last1=Robra |first1=Ben |last2=Pazaitis |first2=Alex |last3=Giotitsas |first3=Chris |last4=Pansera |first4=Mario |date=2023-07-01 |title=From creative destruction to convivial innovation - A post-growth perspective |journal=Technovation |volume=125 |pages=102760 |doi=10.1016/j.technovation.2023.102760 |issn=0166-4972|doi-access=free |hdl=11093/4788 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> From this viewpoint, innovation is primarily driven by the imperative of capital accumulation, serving the sole purpose of increasing returns, neglecting societal needs such as a clean environment or [[social equality]] and in general the biophysical limits of our planet.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hoekstra |first1=Arjen Y. |last2=Wiedmann |first2=Thomas O. |date=2014-06-06 |title=Humanity's unsustainable environmental footprint |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1248365 |journal=Science |language=en |volume=344 |issue=6188 |pages=1114–1117 |doi=10.1126/science.1248365 |pmid=24904155 |bibcode=2014Sci...344.1114H |s2cid=206553617 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Rockström |first1=Johan |last2=Steffen |first2=Will |last3=Noone |first3=Kevin |last4=Persson |first4=Åsa |last5=Chapin |first5=F. Stuart |last6=Lambin |first6=Eric F. |last7=Lenton |first7=Timothy M. |last8=Scheffer |first8=Marten |last9=Folke |first9=Carl |last10=Schellnhuber |first10=Hans Joachim |last11=Nykvist |first11=Björn |last12=de Wit |first12=Cynthia A. |last13=Hughes |first13=Terry |last14=van der Leeuw |first14=Sander |last15=Rodhe |first15=Henning |date=September 2009 |title=A safe operating space for humanity |url=https://www.nature.com/articles/461472a |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=461 |issue=7263 |pages=472–475 |doi=10.1038/461472a |pmid=19779433 |bibcode=2009Natur.461..472R |issn=0028-0836}}</ref>