Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Industrial Marketing Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/indmarman

Value capture in open innovation: A literature review and a

research agenda
Adrian Toroslu a, b, *, Brita Schemmann b, Maryse M.H. Chappin c, Carolina Castaldi a,
Andrea M. Herrmann d
a
Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
b
School of International Business, Hochschule Bremen, Bremen, Germany
c
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
d
Nijmegen School of Management, Radboud University, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: While empirical research on open innovation initially focused on value creation, there has been a growing in­
Open innovation terest in value capture among academics and companies. Understanding value capture is crucial, as the success of
Value capture open innovation activities depends on the value capture potential of all actors involved. To provide an overview
Value appropriation
of the key findings and guide future research, we conducted an integrative literature review of 69 empirical
Integrative literature review
Research agenda
studies on value capture in open innovation. When analyzing these studies, we focused on what value is
captured, who captures it, and how actor strategies influence the value captured in collaborative innovation
activities. Our analysis identified four areas for further research, namely (i) broadening concepts and measures of
value, (ii) understanding the importance of contextual factors in capturing value, (iii) adopting a dynamic
perspective in studying value capture, and (iv) capturing social and environmental value in light of wicked
problems.

1. Introduction activities ultimately depends on the ability of the actors involved to

capture value. If actors are not satisfied with the value they capture, the
Open innovation strategies have gained popularity, in part, due to success of OI activities is at risk. Research has shown that actors only
advancements in digitalization, which have facilitated new and diverse continue to collaborate if they receive some form of compensation for
forms of collaboration between organizations and online communities their value creation efforts (Chesbrough, Lettl, & Ritter, 2018; Franke,
(Bogers et al., 2017; Huang & Rust, 2017). As a result, research on open Keinz, & Klausberger, 2013). An example that illustrates how much
innovation has grown significantly over the past decade (Bogers, Ches­ value capture matters in OI is the one discussed by Granstrand and
brough, & Moedas, 2018; Dahlander, Gann, & Wallin, 2021). Coined by Holgersson (2014). Their case study concerns an innovation collabora­
Henry Chesbrough (2003), the term open innovation (OI) refers to a tion between a large European multinational corporation and a small US
‘distributed innovation process based on purposively managed knowl­ R&D firm. The OI project had a troublesome termination, with intel­
edge flows across organizational boundaries’ (Chesbrough & Bogers, lectual property disputes leading to serious tensions between partners.
2014, p. 5). The case study shows that such tensions could have been avoided if the
Since the early 2000s, researchers have emphasized the importance OI partners had made contractual arrangements that considered all
of studying both value creation and value capture in OI (Chesbrough, types of values created and which part each partner would be able to
2003; Chesbrough & Rosenbloom, 2002). However, initial empirical capture. This demonstrates that to prevent OI collaboration failures, it is
work in this field primarily focused on value creation (West & Bogers, necessary to understand what is at stake, who of the collaborating
2014). In recent years, there has been a growing awareness among ac­ partners receives which share, and how value capture is secured. It
ademics and companies alike of the need to also examine value capture highlights the need to fully understand value capture processes in OI. A
in OI. This is not surprising, given that the long-term success of most OI lack of understanding can jeopardize the outcome of the OI process and

* Corresponding author at: Economic Geography, Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Utrecht University, Princetonlaan 8a, 3584 CB Utrecht, the Netherlands.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Toroslu).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2023.08.012
Received 6 December 2022; Received in revised form 5 August 2023; Accepted 19 August 2023
Available online 15 September 2023
0019-8501/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

even lead to long-lasting tensions in partner relationships. involved in OI activities to capture value successfully. By focusing on
Beyond the above example, there is a more general acknowledge­ these three questions, we contribute to current OI community discourse
ment that companies might focus on the value created through OI, but (Dahlander et al., 2021; Majchrzak, Bogers, Chesbrough, & Holgersson,
underestimate or disregard the challenges of how to actually capture 2023; Piller et al., 2020) and provide researchers with relevant back­
value from it (Stefan, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, Vanhaverbeke, & ground knowledge to guide future investigations into value capture in
Oikarinen, 2022). Additional evidence supporting this issue comes from OI. In contrast to research that focuses on the impact of OI on firm or
research on crowdsourcing. Firms are able to crowdsource innovative innovation performance (see e.g., Ebersberger, Galia, Laursen, & Salter,
ideas, but only implement one out of 500 ideas proposed by the com­ 2021; Laursen & Salter, 2006), we zoom in on the specific mechanisms,
munity (Hossain & Islam, 2015). Moreover, crowdsourcing exposes factors, and processes that facilitate value capture in OI.
firms to knowledge leakages, therefore strategies to mitigate this expo­
sure while still being able to capture value from the crowdsourced ideas 2. Value capture in open innovation
are a key concern of crowdsourcing platforms (de Jong et al., 2016;
Lakhani & Lonstein, 2008). Teece (1986) was one of the first scholars to systematically study
While studies addressing OI have increasingly investigated chal­ how firms profit from their own innovations. By linking the fields of
lenges related to value capture, our understanding of the factors that strategy and innovation, Teece addressed the question of why innova­
facilitate or hinder value capture is still fragmented and therefore tive firms often fail to realize the economic rents from their innovations.
limited as empirical insights gained on this matter have not yet been To optimally capture the profits from an innovation, firms must decide
brought together by an integrative literature review.1 Specifically, there whether to allocate a portion of innovation activities to owners of
is a large body of research demonstrating the potential benefits of OI in complementary assets or to integrate all required complementary assets.
general (Barge-Gil, 2013; Ebersberger, Bloch, Herstad, & Van De Velde, This decision depends on the interplay between the strength of the
2012; Laursen & Salter, 2006; Vahter, Love, & Roper, 2014), yet appropriability regime and the control over complementary and
evidence-based insights are often scattered and lack integration. There specialized assets. While the appropriability regime was viewed as
could be two reasons for this. First, OI can involve a diverse range of exogenous given in its earliest conceptualization, Pisano and Teece
actors, including individuals, firms, or communities who may or may (2007) broadened this view by considering how a firm can actively
not know each other beforehand. Therefore, interests in value capture, shape its appropriability regime. They also integrated aspects of open
along with the factors influencing the value capture process, could innovation, arguing that collaborative innovation activities are facili­
depend on the actors involved. Second, the definition and conceptuali­ tated in contexts with clear intellectual property rights or control over
zation of the term ‘value’ can differ significantly among researchers, key complementary assets.
making it difficult to compare and to integrate insights. Consequently, Recognizing the importance of capturing returns from innovation, OI
the significance of various factors may vary depending on the specific scholars addressed the aspect of value capture early on. While early
definition employed in the analysis. Given the importance of value work provided a rather general framework on value capture in OI
capture in OI and the fragmented nature of the research field, it is time to (Chesbrough, 2003), later research elaborated on this concept in greater
consolidate key empirical insights to guide future scholarly work. detail (Chesbrough et al., 2018). Subsequent research by OI scholars
To address this gap, we conducted an integrative literature review of often investigated the “paradox of openness,” which describes the ten­
studies on value capture in OI. Our review has two objectives: first, to sion between sharing knowledge through collaboration with other or­
analyze and synthesize existing empirical evidence, providing a ganizations and protecting one’s own technological know-how (Arora,
comprehensive understanding of the current state of knowledge on Athreye, & Huang, 2016; Bogers, 2011; Laursen & Salter, 2014;
value capture in OI; and second, to identify potential avenues for future Wadhwa, Bodas Freitas, & Sarkar, 2017). The tension between knowl­
empirical research in this area. To achieve our objectives, our literature edge sharing and appropriability in open innovation collaborations re­
review is structured around three guiding questions. While these guiding flects the need for collaborative value creation and simultaneous value
questions are not used as selection criteria, they provide a useful capture by the innovating firm (Chesbrough et al., 2018). These de­
framework for organizing our analysis of the literature. First, because velopments underscore the critical role of capitalizing on externally
the term ‘value’ encompasses a broad range of indicators and measures, sourced resources and knowledge in OI.
we answer the call for a new narrative on value capture by examining The definition of value in OI has evolved over time from a purely
value beyond its economic definition (Piller et al., 2020). We therefore economic concept to a more nuanced definition that considers a broader
ask what value is captured and how it is defined in OI activities. Second, range of indicators and measures of value. Early scholars studying the
given that OI activities involve knowledge and resource exchanges be­ value capture of innovations, were largely referring to economic value
tween a focal actor and different types of external actors (Bogers et al., as they investigated who captures the economic returns of innovations
2017), it is essential to identify which actors aim to capture value in OI. (Pisano, 2006; Pisano & Teece, 2007; Teece, 1986). In the OI field, this
Hence, we ask who captures value from OI activities. This question is has developed into a broader definition of value capture, which is
crucial for understanding the distribution of value among actors. Third, considered “as the process of securing financial or nonfinancial return[s]
we focus on the process of value capture, as it is critical to understand from value creation” (Chesbrough et al., 2018, p. 933). It was further
how OI collaborations generate value for the actors involved. Thus, we distinguished between value partaking and value negotiation (Ches­
ask how value is captured. In other words, what mechanisms and factors brough et al., 2018). While the former is defined as value capture
contribute to or hinder value capture in OI. This question is essential for through partaking in, and profiting from, other actors’ value creation,
identifying the specific actions and strategies that can help actors the latter is defined as profiting from access to and ownership of firm
resources. Our integrative literature review examines both financial and
non-financial values in the context of value capture in OI, in line with the
1
broader definition of value that recognizes the importance of consid­
The literature review by Niesten and Stefan (2019) examines research on ering a range of outcomes beyond just financial returns. In line with the
value capture in collaborative innovation activities. The authors focus on fac­
definition of Chesbrough et al. (2018), we focus on organizational pro­
tors that promote and resolve paradoxical tensions between co-creating and
cesses and factors that ensure the capture of financial and non-financial
capturing value in interorganizational relationships, adopting the theoretical
perspective of paradox theory (Smith & Lewis, 2011). This focus might exclude rewards through engaging in OI.
mechanisms and practices of value capture unrelated to paradoxical tensions.
Moreover, it overlooks articles that exclusively investigate the value capture
aspect of OI.

298
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

3. Methodology use the keyword ‘open innovation.’ We exclusively used keywords that
signify a type of collaboration between agent(s). For example, we did
We conducted an integrative literature review to analyze and syn­ not include keywords such as ‘acquiring,’ ‘selling,’ ‘sourcing,’ or
thesize the empirical evidence gained on value capture in OI so far and ‘revealing’ which Dahlander and Gann (2010) identified as distinct
highlight necessary avenues for future research (Torraco, 2005, 2016). forms of openness. Such keywords describe firm strategies that are not
This approach involves two key steps, namely: 1) deconstructing the exclusive to the field of OI. We presume that if researchers investigate
topic into its fundamental elements to extract the key relationships be­ specific firm strategies within the context of collaborative innovation,
tween the different constructs; and 2) integrating these insights with they embed their research into the broader field of OI by using one of the
new ideas to propose novel perspectives on the topic. To identify and keywords we have selected.
select relevant articles for our review, we employed standard practices The second group of keywords pertained to the concept of value
commonly used in the field, including searching and screening (Niesten capture, or the absence of it. Some of these terms originated from the
& Stefan, 2019; Tranfield, Denyer, & Smart, 2003; Watson, Wilson, strategy and marketing literature (Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000; Jaco­
Smart, & Macdonald, 2018). We selected Scopus as the primary database bides, Knudsen, & Augier, 2006; Lepak, Smith, & Taylor, 2007), but
for our study due to its wide-ranging coverage of diverse disciplines and have been adapted and popularized by leading OI scholars (Chesbrough
journals (Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). However, even the use of Scopus et al., 2018; Laursen & Salter, 2014). We selected these keywords to
as the bibliographic database could potentially introduce bias in favor of identify studies that examined how value is either gained or lost in OI.
research from countries that tend to publish in English language journals We excluded more general terms, such as ‘profit,’ because they are often
(Mongeon & Paul-Hus, 2016). Despite this potential bias, we consider used more broadly and do not specifically relate to how firms capture
Scopus to be the most appropriate choice because we do not anticipate value from collaborative innovation activities.
significant differences among countries in terms of researchers studying We searched the literature by combining the search terms from the
value capture in OI. first and the second keyword groups using the ‘AND’ operator. The
search was restricted to article titles, keywords, and abstracts, and
limited to articles published in English. Our search was performed on
3.1. Searching
June 20, 2022, and yielded an initial set of 315 articles published be­
tween 19702 and 2022.
We identified and selected relevant keywords and keyword combi­
nations through a literature scoping process. The keyword groups and
3.2. Screening
combinations that we used to conduct the literature search are presented
in Table 1. The first keyword group comprised various terms that are
As a basic criterion for article inclusion, it is important to highlight
commonly used to describe OI in the literature. We also included other
that the definition of OI emphasizes ‘purposively managed knowledge
collaborative innovation related terms frequently used in the field, such
flows’ among innovation collaboration partners (Chesbrough, 2003;
as ‘crowdsourcing,’ ‘open source,’ ‘coopetition,’ and ‘R&D collabora­
Chesbrough et al., 2018; Dahlander & Gann, 2010; West & Bogers,
tion,’ to identify studies that explore the same phenomenon but do not
2014). Therefore, we have chosen to focus our analysis on articles that
investigate how actors manage value capture in OI. By adopting this
Table 1
perspective, we aim to highlight the significance of actor capabilities
Keyword groups.
and practices in facilitating and managing collaborative innovation ac­
Group I – OI keywords Group II – keywords relating to value tivities. This approach allows us to delve deeper into the understanding
capture or lack thereof
of how different actors purposively engage in OI with the intention of
Keywords “open innovat*” “value captur*” capturing value. Consequently, articles that focused on knowledge cre­
“distributed innovat*” “captur* value”
ation in self-organizing networks (Dutton, 2008) or did not examine an
“external innovat*” “value appropriat*”
co-creat* innovat* “appropriat* value” actor’s efforts to manage OI activities (Dedrick & Kraemer, 2015) were
cocreat* innovat* misappropriat* excluded from our analysis. Additionally, our goal is to synthesize the
crowdsourcing innovat* “value co-destruct*” current state of original research findings to develop a research agenda
“user innovat*” “co-destruct* of value” for future empirical work on value capture in OI. Therefore, we solely
coopetit* innovat* “knowledge spillover*”
co-opetit* innovat* “knowledge leakage*”
reviewed articles that engaged in empirical investigations. There is also
“open source” innovat* conceptual (e.g., Chesbrough et al., 2018) and mathematical modeling
“R&D collaborat*” research (e.g., Wang & Li, 2021) that hypothesizes about value capture
cooperat* innovat* in OI. These conceptual and modeling studies do not investigate to what
“innovat* partnership*”
extent hypothesized relations and effects are also observed in empirical
“supplier collaborat*”
innovat* settings. Therefore, those studies are not included, and our review
“customer collaborat*” exclusively examines research that investigates processes and factors
innovat* that impact value capture, supported by empirical data. Furthermore,
“university collaborat*” we excluded articles that examined the relationship between mecha­
innovat*
“university industry
nisms of value capture and the willingness to engage in OI. For instance,
collaborat*” innovat* studies such as Miozzo, Desyllas, Lee, and Miles’s (2016) investigation of
“B2B collaborat*” innovat* the influence of formal, contractual, or strategic value capture mecha­
“joint venture” innovat* nisms on the significance or extent of innovation collaboration with
“interfirm innovat*”
external partners were excluded from our review. Moreover, studies that
“interorgani?ation*
innovat*” examine prior value capture from innovations as a precursor to new
hackathon innovat* R&D collaborations were not considered in our review as they do not
co-innovat* investigate actual value capture resulting from OI, but rather focus on
“R&D alliance*”

Note: The operator “” signifies exact keyword matching. The operator * searches
2
for words with the same root, for instance ‘R&D collaboration’ or ‘R&D col­ Our search yielded ten articles published prior to Chesbrough’s seminal
laborators’. The operator ? is a placeholder for any letter instead of ?, for work (2003), which first introduced and elaborated on the concept of open
example, ‘interorganizational’ or ‘interorganisational.’ innovation.

299
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

the influence of previous experiences on the likelihood of engaging in OI a firm’s continual re-evaluation of value capture potential. After
(e.g., Belderbos, Gilsing, Lokshin, Carree, & Sastre, 2018). compiling this list, we grouped mechanisms or factors that addressed the
We performed three rounds of exclusions. In the first round, we same topic into separate themes.
scrutinized titles, keywords, and abstracts to ensure that the article Second, and based on this critical analysis, we synthesized the main
studied the context of innovation with external actors in an empirical literature topics and gaps to formulate a research agenda for future
setting. As a result, we excluded 176 articles. In the second round, after scholars seeking to advance the study of value capture in OI.
thoroughly examining the abstracts of the remaining articles, we then
screened each article to exclusively include studies which focused on 4. Findings
aspects of value capture in OI. This resulted in the exclusion of an
additional 61 articles. The final selection was based on a comprehensive 4.1. Descriptive analysis
reading of each remaining article to confirm that they substantially
addressed and offered valuable insights into aspects of value capture in Value capture in OI has been studied across various types of inno­
OI. Following this step, we excluded nine more articles, which resulted vation collaborations with the most commonly studied collaborations
in the final sample of 69 articles. Fig. 1 illustrates the literature selection are those using a composite measure of openness, which includes col­
process, including a schematic depiction of the main reasons for laborations between for-profit firms and private-public collaborations
excluding articles in each of the three rounds. (32%). Another common research context is to focus solely on collabo­
To mitigate the risk of subjective influence in our article selection rations between private firms (29%). In contrast, multi-actor networks
process, we utilized triangulation by involving two academically trained (12%), collaborations between a private and a public organization (9%),
individuals. Both individuals received the same briefing on open inno­ collaborations between an organization and a group of potential solvers
vation and value capture and were provided with the article selection (7%), or firm-community collaborations (7%) are less studied.
criteria used in our screening process. We then randomly selected ten The original understanding of OI focused on firms engaging with
articles from the 139 publications screened in the second round of ex­ external actors already known to them (Chesbrough, 2003). Digitaliza­
clusions and provided them to the two academically trained individuals. tion enabled and facilitated firms to also make use of previously un­
They were instructed to apply the inclusion criteria and determine known external actors (Huang & Rust, 2017; Mele & Russo-Spena,
whether each article should be included in the literature review. In nine 2015). However, the majority of research (84% of selected articles) fo­
out of 10 cases, their selection of articles matched our own. The one cuses on OI with known agent(s), or relationships where the collabo­
discrepancy was due to a misunderstanding of the selection criteria, rating actor is known beforehand. This is interesting because research on
indicating the robustness of our article selection process. value capture in OI—with both known and unknown agent(s)—began
around the same time (approximately 2010), yet only recently there has
3.3. Extraction and synthesis been a surge of research on OI with unknown agent(s), especially in the
context of crowdsourcing (Cricelli, Grimaldi, & Vermicelli, 2022). One
Our analytical strategy consisted of two steps. First, we followed potential reason for this difference is the complexity of OI with unknown
Torraco’s suggestions for writing integrative literature reviews (Torraco, agent(s), which can make it more challenging to define and understand
2005, 2016), which emphasize the importance of conducting a critical the external actors and collect data on them.
analysis that can lead to the identification of new research areas. To In terms of methodological approaches used, about 70% of the
recap, our goal is to review the existing work on value capture in OI with reviewed articles employed a quantitative research design, while the
a focus on what value is captured, who captures it, and how is it captured. remaining 30% use a qualitative design (mostly in the form of single or
To achieve this objective, we first listed the research context for each multiple case studies). Only one article used a mixed-methods research
article, as well as the data source, unit of analysis, definition of value, approach. Among quantitative studies, about 40% employed a cross-
and key findings on value capture. This enabled us to break down each sectional research design, while the remaining 60% utilized either a
article into its fundamental components and identify key relationships cross-sectional design with a lagged dependent variable or a panel
between different constructs. For instance, we could identify whether research design.
particular value capture factors were only examined in certain types of We observe a significant growth in publications on value capture in
OI collaborations. Moreover, by specifying the unit of analysis and the OI after 2016, which may be attributed to the increasing attention and
definition of value, we were able to address our initial questions of what interest in this topic among prominent OI scholars (Bogers & West,
value is captured and who captures it. By deconstructing each article in 2012; West & Bogers, 2014). Furthermore, our analysis indicates that
this manner, we gained a comprehensive understanding of the different research on value capture in OI is dispersed across a wide range of ac­
value capture mechanisms and factors in OI, which allowed us to address ademic journals. While Research Policy published the most arti­
our last research objective of proposing new perspectives on the topic. cles—just six in total—the remaining articles were distributed across 40
The subsequent coding process then enabled us to answer our three different journals related to business, management, and innovation.
questions separately. To determine the type of value being captured, we
coded the different definitions or measurements of value used in the 4.2. Value definition and measurement in open innovation
articles. For quantitative studies, we examined the operationalization of
value in the methods section. For qualitative studies, we first looked for Overall, researchers use a wide range of value indicators, which can
a definition or operationalization of value, and if it was missing, we be roughly divided into financial and non-financial. Table 2 presents all
assessed the different value outcomes mentioned in the results section. value measures and the articles in which they were studied. Measures of
To determine who captured value, we analyzed and coded the different financial value commonly used by researchers include sales in general or
actors (e.g., individual, organization, network, environment) mentioned the percentage of sales attributable to new products and services (e.g.,
in the articles in relation to capturing value. If a mix of actors was Bien, Ben, & Wang, 2014; Bouncken, Fredrich, & Kraus, 2020), revenue/
involved, the results of value capture were noted with reference to the profits or the percentage of revenue/profits attributable to new products
corresponding actors. To answer how value is captured, we examined the and services (e.g., Hani & Dagnino, 2020; Pedersen, Bogers, & Clausen,
results and discussion sections to identify the mechanisms and factors 2022), revenue generated by solvers in crowdsourcing competitions (e.
underlying the processes of value capture. This analytical step was g., Kohler, 2015; Zhang et al., 2020), as well as Tobin’s q or related
facilitated by listing all the mechanisms and factors of value capture that measures of firm market value (e.g., Belderbos, Cassiman, Faems, Leten,
were prominent in each article. Examples include formal intellectual & Van Looy, 2014; Lv, Zeng, & Lan, 2018).
property tools, communication practices, and internal processes such as Regarding non-financial value, five measures stand out. First,

300
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the literature selection process.

researchers largely refer to the introduction of new or improved prod­ & Schulz, 2022). Fourth, researchers also use the subjective quality of
ucts, services, or processes (e.g., Radziwon, Bogers, & Bilberg, 2017; the innovative outcomes as an indicator of value capture (e.g., Seo &
Stefan & Bengtsson, 2017). Second, intellectual value is often used Park, 2022; Williams & Vossen, 2014). Finally, researchers use the
which represents market, marketing, managerial, or technological in­ measure of obtaining new partnerships or customers as an outcome of OI
sights (e.g., Morgan & Finnegan, 2014; Reypens, Lievens, & Blazevic, activities (e.g., Radziwon et al., 2017; Takahashi & Takahashi, 2022).
2016). This type of value refers, for example, to a better understanding Less frequently used measures of non-financial value indicators include
of market dynamics or insights into new management techniques. Third, firm reputation, the allocation of value capture rights,3 environmental
some researchers use patents granted, filed, or cited as an outcome of value, and imitation of inventions, products, or designs or IP
collaborative innovation activities (e.g., Murgia, 2021; Runge, Schwens, infringement.

3
Ozmel et al. (2017) were the first to introduce the term ‘value capture
rights’ in our selection of articles. Value capture rights encompass various
control rights over the innovation outcome, including ownership of patents and
unpatented intellectual property, the right to sublicense the IP, product
development and manufacturing rights, and marketing rights.

301
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

Table 2
Common financial and non-financial measurements of ‘value.’
Financial value Studies Non-financial value Studies

Sales Bien et al. (2014)*, Bouncken, Fredrich, and Kraus (2020), New or improved products/ Arant, Fornahl, Grashof, Hesse, and Söllner (2019), Bien et al.
Chen, Zeng, Yu, and Xue (2019), Dell’Era et al. (2020), Demil services / processes (2014)*, Chanal and Caron-Fasan (2010)*, Chen, Yao, Zan,
and Lecocq (2014)*, Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos (2015), and Carayannis (2021), Fernandes and Ferreira (2013), Fitjar
Erickson (2018)*, Garcia Martinez, Zouaghi, and Sanchez and Rodríguez-Pose (2020), Garcia, Wigger, and Hermann
Garcia (2017), Grimaldi, Greco, and Cricelli (2021), Guerrero, (2019), Heidemann Lassen, Ljungberg, and McKelvey (2020),
Heijs, and Huergo (2022), Ko, Chung, and Seo (2020), Sarpong Jirjahn and Kraft (2011), Kim, Cho, and Ramesh (2019),
and Teirlinck (2018), Shaikh and Levina (2019)*, Wu, Lin, and Montoro-Sánchez, Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, and Mora-
Chen (2013), Zhang, Li, and Zheng (2017), Zhang, Jiang, Wu, Valentín (2011), Radziwon et al. (2017), Reypens et al.
and Li (2019) (2016), Simonen and McCann (2008), Stefan and Bengtsson
(2017), Tojeiro-Rivero and Moreno (2019), Triguero and
Fernández (2018)
Revenue / Bernal, Carree, and Lokshin (2022), Chanal and Caron-Fasan Intellectual value Ahlfänger, Gemünden, and Leker (2022), Basterretxea,
profits (2010)*, Dell’Era et al. (2020), Demil and Lecocq (2014)*, (technological, marketing, or Charterina, and Landeta (2019)*, Bien et al. (2014)*, Elia,
Hani and Dagnino (2020)*, Morgan and Finnegan (2014)*, market knowledge) Messeni Petruzzelli, and Urbinati (2020), Erickson (2018)*,
Kohler (2015)*, Kohler and Nickel (2017)*, Ko et al. (2020), Garcia et al. (2019), Kim et al. (2019), Leten et al. (2013)*,
Leten, Vanhaverbeke, Roijakkers, Clerix, and Van Helleputte Morgan and Finnegan (2014)*, Napp and Minshall (2011),
(2013)*, Pedersen et al. (2022)*, Shaikh and Levina (2019)*, Pedersen et al. (2022)*, Reypens et al. (2016), Shaikh and
Wadhwa et al. (2017), Zhang et al. (2020)* Levina (2019)*, Takahashi and Takahashi (2022)
Market value / Belderbos et al. (2014), Bien et al. (2014)*, Dell’Era et al. Patents granted / filed /cited Arora et al. (2016), Hani and Dagnino (2020)*, Leten et al.
share (2020), Demil and Lecocq (2014)*, de Oliveira, Verreynne, (2013)*, Murgia (2021), Runge et al. (2022), Shkolnykova
Steen, and Indulska (2021), Lv et al. (2018), Williams and and Kudic (2022), Yan, Dong, and Faems (2020)
Vossen (2014)*
Firm Basterretxea et al. (2019)*, Nagle (2018), Seo and Park Innovation quality Ahlfänger et al. (2022), Bouncken, Fredrich, Ritala, and Kraus
performance (2022)*, Wu et al. (2013) (2020), Seo and Park (2022)*, Wang and Jiang (2020),
Williams and Vossen (2014)*, Zhang et al. (2020)*
IP Demil and Lecocq (2014)* New partnerships / customers Demil and Lecocq (2014)*, Elia et al. (2020), Morgan and
infringement Finnegan (2014)*, Radziwon et al. (2017), Reypens et al.
(2016), Takahashi and Takahashi (2022)
Reputation Ahlfänger et al. (2022), Chanal and Caron-Fasan (2010)*,
Kohler (2015)*, Kohler and Nickel (2017)*, Radziwon et al.
(2017)
Allocation of value capture Adegbesan and Higgins (2011), Devarakonda, Reuer, and
rights Tadikonda (2022), Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Ritala (2010),
Ozmel, Yavuz, Reuer, and Zenger (2017)
Environmental value Garcia et al. (2019), Li-Ying, Mothe, and Nguyen (2018),
Zhang, Xu, Wang, and Zhang (2022)
Imitation / knowledge Ahlfänger et al. (2022), Foege, Piening, and Salge (2017)
leakage

Note: The table excludes studies that solely refer to the concept of value without using any concrete measures: Foege, Lauritzen, Tietze, and Salge (2019), Garcia et al.
(2019), Stefan, Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, and Vanhaverbeke (2021), Barbic, Jolink, Niesten, and Hidalgo (2021). Articles marked with an asterisk examine both
financial and non-financial value indicators, sometimes using a composite measure in quantitative studies.

Overall, a slightly greater portion of research on value capture in OI 4.3. Who captures value in OI?
has focused on non-financial value outcomes. There are two notable
findings worth highlighting. First, among the 69 selected articles, 54 In our analysis, various actors were found to capture value from OI.
exclusively concentrate on either financial or non-financial outcomes, Table 3 shows all actors that were found to capture value from OI. The
with only 15 examining both financial and non-financial outcomes majority of studies focus on organizations capturing financial or non-
together. Notably, eight of these articles explore OI contexts of crowd­ financial value from OI in different contexts, including business-to-
sourcing or firm-community collaboration, where the OI partner is un­ business relationships (e.g., Lv et al., 2018; Yan et al., 2020), public-
known in advance (e.g., Kohler, 2015; Shaikh & Levina, 2019). The private partnerships (e.g., Dell’Era et al., 2020; Díez-Vial & Fernán­
combined study of financial and non-financial value outcomes is more dez-Olmos, 2015), multi-actor networks (e.g., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen &
prevalent in OI contexts where the collaboration partner is not pre­ Ritala, 2010; Leten et al., 2013), firm-community collaborations (e.g.,
determined, as these articles account for the minority of the 69 selected Elia et al., 2020; Morgan & Finnegan, 2014), and firm interactions with
articles. Second, value capture encompasses both financial and non- crowdsourcing solvers (Chanal & Caron-Fasan, 2010). Nevertheless,
financial benefits (Chesbrough et al., 2018). We find that non- some researchers also address other types of actors capturing value from
financial outcomes may either be more or less closely linked to poten­ OI: Five articles focus on value capture by individuals in crowdsourcing
tial financial gains. Measures such as the development of new or contests or firm-community collaboration. Another five articles examine
improved products and services, or filling or granting of patents, possible value spillovers effects that occur when firm-level decisions
potentially have a more immediate impact on tangible financial benefits. indirectly influence value capture of actors not directly involved in the
On the other hand, measures such as intellectual value or new part­ OI activity. Three of these five articles examine value capture by a
nerships exhibit a weaker link to financial gains. Consequently, some network when multiple firms collaborate with each other (Garcia et al.,
non-financial value outcomes can be regarded as intermediate outcomes 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Reypens et al., 2016), and three examine value
of OI activities, preceding more concrete financial outcomes such as capture by the market or the larger natural environment (Demil &
increases in sales or revenue, which materialize at a later stage (Taka­ Lecocq, 2014; Garcia et al., 2019; Li-Ying et al., 2018), with Garcia et al.
hashi & Takahashi, 2022). (2019) addressing both perspectives.
In summary, researchers on value capture in OI have predominantly
focused on how firms benefit from such collaborative innovation ac­
tivities. Only ten of the 69 analyzed articles investigate value capture by

302
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

Table 3 about the research context of each paper, including, the type of OI
Actors that actively or passively capture value in OI activities through direct collaboration examined, the industry in which the studied organizations
involvement or spillover effects. operate, and the country from which the data originates. For an over­
Actor Studies view of the various articles that address the combination of what and
Organization Adegbesan and Higgins (2011), Ahlfänger et al.
how value is captured in OI, please refer to Table A.1 in the appendix.
(2022), Arant et al. (2019), Arora et al. (2016),
Barbic et al. (2021), Basterretxea et al. (2019), 4.4.1. Formal and informal mechanisms of value capture
Belderbos et al. (2014), Bernal et al. (2022), Bien Concerning value capture mechanisms, firms use a wide range of
et al. (2014), Bouncken, Fredrich, and Kraus
formal (e.g., patents, trademarks) and informal (e.g., secrecy, lead-time
(2020), Bouncken, Fredrich, Ritala, and Kraus
(2020), Chanal and Caron-Fasan (2010), Chen advantages) mechanisms to prevent misappropriation and ensure value
et al. (2019), Dell’Era et al. (2020), Demil and capture after successful collaboration (de Oliveira et al., 2021; Foege
Lecocq (2014), de Oliveira et al. (2021), et al., 2017; Heidemann Lassen et al., 2020; Stefan et al., 2021; Stefan &
Devarakonda et al. (2022), Díez-Vial and Bengtsson, 2017; Wadhwa et al., 2017). This body of research generally
Fernández-Olmos (2015), Elia et al. (2020),
Erickson (2018), Fernandes and Ferreira (2013),
shows that formal and informal protection mechanisms have a positive
Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose (2020), Foege et al. impact on firm value capture, while also reducing the risk of intellectual
(2017), Garcia et al. (2019), Garcia Martinez et al. property infringement in collaborative innovation activities. Strategi­
(2017), Grimaldi et al. (2021), Guerrero et al. cally using protection mechanisms to showcase innovation capabilities
(2022), Hani and Dagnino (2020), Heidemann
to external actors has been identified as a fruitful strategy for increasing
Lassen et al. (2020), Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and
Ritala (2010), Jirjahn and Kraft (2011), Kim et al. value capture (Grimaldi et al., 2021). Furthermore, it should be noted
(2019), Ko et al. (2020), Kohler (2015), Kohler and that while protection mechanisms have been shown to have a positive
Nickel (2017), Leten et al. (2013), Lv et al. (2018), impact on firm value capture, they may not necessarily address the
Li-Ying et al. (2018), Montoro-Sánchez et al. underlying tensions that can arise between collaborating actors (Stefan
(2011), Morgan and Finnegan (2014), Murgia
et al., 2021). In the case of multi-actor collaborations, effective man­
(2021), Nagle (2018), Napp and Minshall (2011),
Ozmel et al. (2017), Pedersen et al. (2022), agement of intellectual property is crucial for maximizing the value
Radziwon et al. (2017), Reypens et al. (2016), capture potential of each actor and ensuring the success of the collab­
Runge et al. (2022), Sarpong and Teirlinck (2018), oration (Leten et al., 2013). An overseeing institution can be helpful in
Seo and Park (2022), Shaikh and Levina (2019),
ensuring unique value capture for each actor, consisting of a mix of
Shkolnykova and Kudic (2022), Simonen and
McCann (2008), Stefan and Bengtsson (2017), collectively and individually created value.
Stefan et al. (2021), Takahashi and Takahashi In the case of innovation crowdsourcing, solvers employ a range of
(2022), Triguero and Fernández (2018), Tojeiro- formal and informal mechanisms to alleviate tensions between sharing
Rivero and Moreno (2019), Wang and Jiang and protecting (Foege et al., 2019). These mechanisms include ex-ante
(2020), Williams and Vossen (2014), Wadhwa
patent solutions (i.e., patent thickening or a provisional patent appli­
et al. (2017), Wu et al. (2013), Yan et al. (2020),
Zhang et al. (2019), Zhang et al. (2017), Zhang cation), collaboration tactics with the seeker firm (i.e., non-disclosure
et al. (2022) clauses, partial disclosure of relevant knowledge, solution black-
Crowdsourcing or community Elia et al. (2020), Foege et al. (2019), Kohler boxing, and intermediary bypassing), or ex-post control of resources
platform users (2015), Kohler and Nickel (2017), Zhang et al.
that enhance the customer value of a solution (i.e., complementary as­
(2020)
Network Garcia et al. (2019) ★, Kim et al. (2019) ★, Reypens
sets). Intellectual property issues can arise when knowledge is created
et al. (2016) ★ collaboratively by the community rather than a single solver which can
Natural environment Garcia et al. (2019) ★, Li-Ying et al. (2018) ★ compromise value capture (Chanal & Caron-Fasan, 2010). Taking the
Market Demil and Lecocq (2014)★ perspective of the firm, deciding to make parts of their intellectual
Note: Articles marked with a star (★) do not examine the active value capture property available to the external community must be actively managed
practices or challenges faced by the corresponding actor. Instead, they mention and be in line with industry culture (Demil & Lecocq, 2014). Otherwise,
the increase or decrease in value due to spillover effects. the industry may benefit from increased product offering and more
customers, but the focal firm may not benefit directly. However, if
other actors. Of these ten articles, six study OI activities where firms managed properly, this situation can stimulate the creativity of external
engage with OI partners that are unknown in advance, such as in actors while the firm captures value from licensing or selling the intel­
crowdsourcing or firm-community collaboration contexts. lectual property (Elia et al., 2020).

4.4.2. Factors facilitating or hindering value capture

4.4. Value capture mechanisms and factors in OI Numerous studies have demonstrated factors that can either facili­
tate or hinder value capture. To increase the chances of success and
This section focuses on the empirical evidence of mechanisms and reduce potential tensions between value creation and value capture, it is
factors that influence value capture in OI. Based on our review of the important to select the right actors and develop a clear strategy before
selected articles, we identified three distinct parts that make up the engaging in OI (Ahlfänger et al., 2022; Basterretxea et al., 2019; Garcia
process of how value is captured in OI. First, we identify formal (e.g., et al., 2019; Napp & Minshall, 2011; Radziwon et al., 2017; Stefan et al.,
intellectual property rights) and informal (e.g., selective revealing) 2021; Williams & Vossen, 2014). The continuous anticipation of po­
mechanisms that actors use to ensure value capture in OI. Second, re­ tential value creation and the evaluation of value outcomes that actors
searchers describe factors that either facilitate or hinder value captured plan to seize are two other ex-ante firm level value capture processes
in OI, such as collaboration management practices and trust. Finally, (Reypens et al., 2016; Takahashi & Takahashi, 2022). Trust between
studies examine the characteristics of firms or individual solvers that actors plays an instrumental role in safeguarding against potential value
influence value capture. Despite these contextual characteristics usually capture tensions and increasing value capture by reducing negotiation
being fixed and cannot be changed during an ongoing OI activity, they costs, the risk of fraud, and misappropriation during the collaboration
are nevertheless important to consider at an early stage of an OI process (Basterretxea et al., 2019; Bien et al., 2014; Garcia et al., 2019; Hur­
when actors decide with whom they want to engage. Table 4 presents melinna-Laukkanen & Ritala, 2010; Kim et al., 2019; Stefan et al., 2021).
the most important findings of the articles with respect to the three parts To this end, trust is built through a dynamic process of continuous in­
that are critical for value capture. The table also provides information teractions based on long-term collaboration, rapid and accurate

303
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

Table 4
Mechanisms, factors, and firm/solver characteristics associated with value capture.
Research context Value Factors facilitating/ hindering value capture Contextual characteristics influencing value capture
capture
mechanisms

Collaboration management (e.g.,

Business / market environment

Knowledge transfer activities/

standard practices, meetings)
Asymmetries between actors
(financial, cultural, interests)

Internal processes / changes

Partner type/ characteristics

Firm financing/ ownership

Collaboration experience
Type of OI collaboration

Informal IP mechanisms

Contractual instruments
Formal IP mechanisms

Firm/ solver team size

Knowledge spillover
Location/ geography
Partner selection

capabilities
Industry

Strategy
Country

Trust
Jirjahn and Kraft (2011) 1 3 1 x x
Wu et al. (2013) 1 7 5 x
Arora et al. (2016) 1 7 1 x
Foege et al. (2017) 1 3 1 x x x x
Garcia Martinez et al. (2017) 1 1 1 x x
Stefan and Bengtsson (2017) 1 3 1 x x
Wadhwa et al. (2017) 1 3 1 x x
Zhang et al. (2017) 1 1 2 x
Li-Ying et al. (2018) 1 3 1 x
Sarpong and Teirlinck (2018) 1 2/3 1 x x
Triguero and Fernández (2018) 1 3 1 x x
Chen et al. (2019) 1 2/3 2 x x
Tojeiro-Rivero and Moreno (2019) 1 3 1 x
Fitjar and Rodríguez‐Pose (2020) 1 7 1 x x
Wang and Jiang (2020) 1 1 2 x x
de Oliveira et al. (2021) 1 3/4/6 2 x x
Grimaldi et al. (2021) 1 3 1 x x
Ahlfänger et al. (2022) 1 1/6 1/2/3 x x x x
Guerrero et al. (2022) 1 2/3 1 x x x x
Seo and Park (2022) 1 1 2 x
Adegbesan and Higgins (2011) 2 1 5 x x x
Napp and Minshall (2011) 2 7 5 x x x x
Bien et al. (2014) 2 3 2 x x x
Williams and Vossen (2014) 2 7 1 x
Ozmel et al. (2017) 2 1 3 x x
Lv et al. (2018) 2 1 2 x x
Zhang et al. (2019) 2 7 2 x x x
Bouncken, Fredrich and Kraus (2020) 2 2/3 1 x x x x
Bouncken, Fredrich, Ritala, et al. (2020) 2 1 5 x
Hani and Dagnino (2020) 2 7 5 x
Ko et al. (2020) 2 3 2 x x
Stefan et al. (2021) 2 7 1/3 x x x x x x
Yan et al. (2020) 2 2/3 5 x x x
Chen et al. (2021) 2 1 2 x
Bernal et al. (2022) 2 7 1 x x x
Devarakonda et al. (2022) 2 1 5 x x x x
Runge et al. (2022) 2 4 3 x x
Shkolnykova and Kudic (2022) 2 1 1 x x x
Takahashi and Takahashi (2022) 2 2 4 x
Simonen and McCann (2008) 2/4 1 1 x
Montoro‐Sánchez et al. (2011) 2/4 2 1 x x x
Belderbos et al. (2014) 2/4 7 1/2/3 x
Heidemann Lassen et al. (2020) 2/4 7 1 x x
Hurmelinna-Laukkanen and Ritala (2010) 3 7 1 x x x x x
Leten et al. (2013) 3 1 1 x
Reypens et al. (2016) 3 4 1 x
Radziwon et al. (2017) 3 1 1 x x
Basterretxea et al. (2019) 3 3 1 x x x x
Garcia et al. (2019) 3 2 1 x x x
Kim et al. (2019) 3 6 2 x x x
Barbic et al. (2021) 3 1 1 x x x
Fernandes and Ferreira (2013) 4 2 5 x
Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos (2015) 4 1 1 x x
Arant et al. (2019) 4 1 1 x x
Dell'Era et al. (2020) 4 7 5 x
Murgia (2021) 4 1 1 x
Pedersen et al. (2022) 4 4 1 x x
Chanal and Caron-Fasan (2010) 5 1 1 x x
Kohler (2015) 5 7 5 x x
Kohler and Nickel (2017) 5 7 5 x x
Foege et al. (2019) 5 1 5 x x
Zhang et al. (2020) 5 2 5 x x x
Zhang et al. (2022) 5 3 2 x
Demil and Lecocq (2014) 6 2 5 x x
Morgan and Finnegan (2014) 6 7 1 x
Erickson (2018) 6 5 1 x x
Nagle (2018) 6 6 3 x
Shaikh and Levina (2019) 6 1 5 x x
Elia et al. (2020) 6 1 1 x x

Note: Articles are arranged according to the type of OI collaboration, using the following coding system: 1 = Combined measure of B2B or private-public collabo­
ration, 2 = B2B collaboration, 3 = Collaboration between multiple actors, 4 = Private-public collaboration, 5 = Crowdsourcing, 6 = Firm-community collaboration;
Industry coding: 1 = High-technology, 2 = Service, 3 = Manufacturing, 4 = Health care, 5 = Creative, 6 = IT, 7 = Mix. Finally, the country in which the research was
conducted is coded using the following system Country coding: 1 = Europe, 2 = East-Asia, 3 = US, 4 = South America, 5 = unknown.

304
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

communication, and timely access to relevant data and current project capture. In contrast, with a few exceptions, most articles that study the
status (Basterretxea et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019). Other trust-building influence of strategy, trust, and contractual instruments focus on their
measures include direct interactions between actors supported by three impact on non-financial value outcomes.
cooperation practices: (1) Joint development agreements and project-
level collaboration; (2) maintenance of clear and continuous commu­ 4.4.3. Contextual characteristics influencing value capture
nication channels facilitated by regular meetings; and (3) incentives for There are a couple of firm and partner characteristics that are
employees to collaborate with outside actors (Napp & Minshall, 2011). important to consider when actors are deciding with whom to engage in
Value capture is further driven by the development or improvement collaborative innovation activities. Evidence so far suggests that small
of internal assets, such as organizational or technological assets (Del­ and large firms differ in their capability to capture value: Small and
l’Era et al., 2020; Kim et al., 2019) and by transferring the created value medium firms lack the relevant collaboration experience needed to
into the organization (Reypens et al., 2016; Takahashi & Takahashi, capture value from OI (Bouncken, Fredrich, & Kraus, 2020; Lv et al.,
2022). It is important that all collaboration partners are committed to 2018). However, small and medium sized firms tend to benefit from
the innovation activity to unlock its full potential (Garcia et al., 2019; collaboration with suppliers, if this enables them to tap into their larger
Radziwon et al., 2017). In this context, commitment and motivation are knowledge pools (Guerrero et al., 2022).
enhanced when all participating actors have the potential for individual Research also shows that the type and characteristics of the partners
value capture. If one actor captures substantially more value than the involved matters. While a range of studies demonstrates that collabo­
others, it can create an imbalance in individual value capture and affect rating with all kinds of different partners increases firm financial/non-
the willingness of firms to co-create and bear innovation costs. This, in financial value capture (Arant et al., 2019; Montoro-Sánchez et al.,
turn, can ultimately impact the project outcome and increase the like­ 2011; Sarpong & Teirlinck, 2018; Triguero & Fernández, 2018; Zhang
lihood of collaboration failure (Barbic et al., 2021; Pedersen et al., et al., 2022), Foege et al. (2017) found that firms collaborating with
2022). As a means of last resort, actors rely on contractual instruments customers and suppliers may be especially prone to imitation risks.
to ensure fair value allocation when collaboration is compromised by Moreover, collaborating with firms from different industries positively
mistrust and threats to value capture (Barbic et al., 2021; Hurmelinna- impacts value capture, whereas collaboration with firms from the same
Laukkanen & Ritala, 2010). industry does not (Belderbos et al., 2014; Shkolnykova & Kudic, 2022).
In situations where firms collaborate with an external, firm-initiated, Not only the type of partner involved but also specific partner charac­
or open-source community, factors that contribute to firm value capture teristics, such as their knowledge base or position in a network, in­
are related to active engagement with, and contribution to, community- fluences the relationship between OI and value capture. While firms
produced goods (Erickson, 2018; Nagle, 2018). This process is facilitated collaborating with research institutes capture more value if their part­
by a continuous flow of communication between a firm and its respec­ ners have a different knowledge base (Arant et al., 2019), firms involved
tive external community (Elia et al., 2020). In addition, firms can openly in OI processes with other for-profit firms capture more value if their
reveal internal knowledge or product information to the external com­ partners share a similar knowledge base (Runge et al., 2022; Yan et al.,
munity to receive suggestions for improvement. However, the lack of 2020) or possess special expertise in a certain area (Bouncken, Fredrich,
long-term roadmaps and the more informal nature of open communities Ritala, & Kraus, 2020). However, when the external partner has high
can make it difficult for the firm to capture immediate financial value network prominence and is well connected to other industry members,
(Morgan & Finnegan, 2014; Shaikh & Levina, 2019). Therefore, it is value capture may be diminished (Ozmel et al., 2017).
essential to have realistic expectations about value capture and the time A range of studies touch upon the effects of absorptive capacity in the
required to achieve it. Interestingly, research on firm collaboration with relationship between OI and value capture. Focal firms that possess high
an unknown outside community has not addressed the influence of absorptive capacity, measured for example as a large stock of patents or
having a clear strategy, trust between partners, and partner selection on investments in R&D personnel, are likely to capture more financial/non-
value capture. This might not be because these factors are less relevant financial value from OI (e.g., Devarakonda et al., 2022; Grimaldi et al.,
but rather because they are more difficult to research and manage in this 2021). It has also been shown that this ability to absorb external
context. knowledge is a necessary mediator in the relationship between OI and
Research on value capture in the crowdsourcing context shows that value capture (Chen et al., 2021; Garcia Martinez et al., 2017; Wu et al.,
intermediary platforms between seeker firms and a solver crowd can 2013; Zhang et al., 2019). However, in low-tech industries this media­
implement technical features and processes to ensure solver value cap­ tion effect may be weakened (Garcia Martinez et al., 2017). Contrary to
ture (Kohler, 2015; Kohler & Nickel, 2017). Effective platform features the above findings, two studies find absorptive capacity to have a
that facilitate non-economic value capture include the implementation negative effect on value capture (Jirjahn & Kraft, 2011; Wang & Jiang,
of ranking systems (e.g., by awarding stars, points, or trophies), facili­ 2020). This was observed in an innovation setting not based on collab­
tation of solver networking, and recognition of solvers’ creative con­ oration but on observation of competitors and other settings of knowl­
tributions by the firm. If the seeker firm stands to benefit financially edge spillovers.
from the proposed solution, prize money or revenue-sharing schemes Lastly, the capacity of firms to capture value from OI is significantly
can be used as effective tools to ensure economic value capture for influenced by the business or market environment in which they oper­
solvers, increasing their satisfaction with the outcome of the collabo­ ate. Firms active in low-tech industries might capture more value from
ration (Kohler, 2015; Kohler & Nickel, 2017). However, if the economic having a diverse collaboration portfolio than firms in high-tech in­
benefit is distributed unevenly and only a few solvers benefit, other dustries (Garcia Martinez et al., 2017). Furthermore, value capture from
solvers may perceive the situation as unfair and withdraw from the OI is amplified when firms operate within a highly developed market
crowdsourcing platform. environment that fosters innovative behavior (Chen et al., 2019) and are
On a more general level, we find that the influence of having a clear active in an industry with a strong industrial network (Zhang et al.,
strategy, trust between partners, and partner selection on value capture 2019). Knowledge pools within the market play an important role.
are only studied in OI collaborations between two for-profit firms or Research indicates that firms engaged in collaborative innovation ac­
between multiple actors. These factors are largely absent in cases where tivities benefit more when located in regions with higher knowledge
firms engage in crowdsourcing or solvers contribute to crowdsourcing capacities. Typical indicators used to measure this capacity are the
contests. Furthermore, there are some differences regarding factors number of patents or research expenditures by private firms in that re­
influencing financial and non-financial value capture. The influence of gion (Guerrero et al., 2022; Tojeiro-Rivero & Moreno, 2019).
asymmetries between partners, collaboration management, and internal
changes has been studied for both financial and non-financial value

305
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

5. A research agenda on value capture in OI indicators have the potential for future realized value capture and can be
considered as partial results during an ongoing collaboration (Takahashi
Our integrative literature review reveals that value is primarily un­ & Takahashi, 2022). This calls for a discussion on the interplay between
derstood and measured in financial terms, with a strong focus on the role financial and non-financial value in OI. Solely focusing on one type of
and interests of organizations in value capture. It also highlights the value capture could pose problems, as it may conceal potential benefits
need for active management of OI activities to successfully capture of OI in other areas, resulting in firms failing to recognize the full po­
value. Based on these findings, four research areas are identified as tential of OI activities. Therefore, future research should focus on the
particularly important for advancing our understanding of value capture combination of both financial and non-financial value capture to gain a
in and through OI. Table 5 presents potential research questions asso­ better understanding of all potential types of value that collaborative
ciated with these four areas. innovation activities generate throughout the entire lifecycle of OI. By
gaining a more comprehensive understanding of the various types of
5.1. Research area 1: Advancing the understanding of concepts and values that can be captured in OI, firms can enhance their strategic
measurements of value capture in OI planning and effectively mitigate the risk of ‘unsystematic imple­
mentation’ of OI practices (Abhari & McGuckin, 2023).
The first research area that needs further exploration is related to the Second, since OI can lead to a broad range of captured values, there is
concepts and measures of value that can be captured in OI. Our analysis a need to better understand which values are most important for each
in Section 4.2 has shown that research is evenly distributed between actor involved. Our analyses in sections 4.2 and 4.3 revealed that both
financial and non-financial value outcomes of OI. However, it is note­ financial and non-financial values can be captured by various actors.
worthy that research on OI where the collaboration partner is known in However, if the goals of actors are not aligned, there is a risk that the
advance rarely considers these two measurements of value jointly and collaboration will fail (Garcia et al., 2019). Recent evidence suggests
instead views them as distinct outcomes of collaborative innovation that actor motivation in OI is not limited to financial value capture, but
activities. These two different value outcomes can be linked to the dis­ also includes non-financial factors such as corporate social re­
cussion on appropriability (i.e., potential value capture) and appropri­ sponsibility, marketing concerns, and brand loyalty (Greco, Campagna,
ation (i.e., realized value capture) (Hurmelinna-Laukkanen & Yang, Cricelli, Grimaldi, & Strazzullo, 2022; O’Brien, Jarvis, & Soutar, 2015).
2022). In our case, financial value indicators represent realized profits For example, during the Covid-19 pandemic crisis, firms engaged in
after the successful termination of the collaboration. Non-financial value incremental or radical innovation with external actors not only for in­
dustrial motivations such as new opportunities or revenue streams, but
also for institutional motivations such as corporate social responsibility
Table 5
or marketing concerns (Greco et al., 2022). The interplay between ac­
Potential research questions for an improved understanding of value capture in
open innovation. tors’ goals and the success of OI can be especially challenging in the case
of OI with a crowd of solvers where actors lack shared collaboration
Perspective Potential research questions
experiences, trust has not been established, and there is uncertainty
Research area 1: Concepts What are the OI contexts in which financial and about what other actors expect. According to recent evidence, when
and measures of value non-financial value capture concerns are
crowdsourcing solvers are given the chance to choose their preferred
complementary, and in which contexts are they
treated as independent?
reward from a range of options, rather than being offered a single op­
Is it necessary for the financial and non-financial tion, there is a significant improvement in the quality of the solutions
value capture intentions of OI partners to align? they provide (Moghaddam et al., 2023). Therefore, further research is
What approaches can be used to develop valid and needed to investigate the different expectations of value capture and the
comparable measures that encompass the different
underlying motivations for actors to engage in external collaborations
types of non-financial value that can be captured in
OI? for innovation purposes. For instance, this could involve studying the
Research area 2: Contextual What is the impact of firm and collaboration relative importance of financial versus non-financial value outcomes in
factors characteristics, such as technological expertise and different OI contexts. Shedding light on this matter is crucial as it has
knowledge resources, on the capture value potential
direct implications for the level of satisfaction with the ultimate
in OI?
Given the resource-constraint state of smaller firms,
outcome of the OI activity and the success of the collaboration as a
is firm size always a disadvantage for capturing whole.
value in OI collaborations, or are there situations in Third, our findings concerning what value is captured suggest that
which smaller firms can be just as successful as there may be novel measures requiring further validation and concep­
larger firms?
tualization. For example, many studies have explored intellectual value
What is the impact of the location of OI partners on
their ability to capture value? Is the type of value or as non-financial value measure, looking for indicators such as important
the process of value capture contingent on information about new technology (Bien et al., 2014), technological,
geographical contexts and distance between market, and managerial knowledge (Reypens et al., 2016), or business,
partners? cooperation, and intellectual value (Takahashi & Takahashi, 2022).
Research area 3: Dynamics of Does engaging in OI influence the speed at which
value capture value is captured (e.g., knowledge is acquired,
Another example is innovation quality, which has been assessed by
product/services are developed)? asking managers about customer satisfaction with new or improved
Do firms prioritize partners based on their ability to products (Williams & Vossen, 2014), new customer benefits of new or
capture certain types of value, and how does this improved products (Bouncken, Fredrich, Ritala, & Kraus, 2020), or the
affect the success of the collaboration?
performance of new or improved products relative to competitors (Wang
How does the importance of capturing value change
throughout the different stages of the OI lifecycle? & Jiang, 2020). As these two examples demonstrate, most non-financial
Research area 4: Societal What motivates firms to engage in OI activities value outcomes are challenging to measure and are not yet comparable
value where the majority of the value created is captured across studies. Consequently, future research could concentrate on
at the system level rather than at the firm level? developing valid and comparable measures for non-financial value, such
How can the captured value at the system level be
translated or transferred to the firm level so that all
as reputation, market knowledge, or environmental value, which can be
actors benefit from the OI activity? captured through OI. This would improve the ability to capture and
What value capture factors or mechanisms can be compare the full range of benefits of OI.
identified from successful OI activities aimed at
addressing wicked problems?

306
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

5.2. Research area 2: Advancing understanding of the impact of 5.3. Research area 3: Advancing a dynamic perspective on value capture
contextual factors on value capture in OI in OI

The second area of research addresses the role of firm and collabo­ The third area of future research addresses the knowledge gap
ration characteristics in facilitating or hindering value capture in OI. Our regarding the dynamics of value capture, as most studies are cross-
findings on how value is captured in OI (see Section 4.4) reveal several sectional. As described in Section 4.4 of the analysis, research shows
situational conditions that influence actual firm value capture once the that firms initiate OI activities with a specific value capture goal, which
collaboration is established. Despite OI being practiced in diverse con­ is likely to change throughout the process (e.g., Garcia et al., 2019;
texts, our understanding of the role of contextual factors in shaping Radziwon et al., 2017; Shaikh & Levina, 2019). Research suggests that
value capture by different actors remains limited. For example, most taking a temporal, process-oriented perspective in OI can be beneficial
empirical evidence on value capture originates from studies using data (Bahemia, Sillince, & Vanhaverbeke, 2018; de Melo, Salerno, Freitas,
from established firms or multinational enterprises. There is a research Bagno, & Brasil, 2021; Zynga et al., 2018). By breaking up an OI activity
gap concerning the transferability of existing evidence on mechanisms into distinct phases, it becomes possible to identify specific consider­
and factors that contribute to value capture for newly established or ations essential for OI to realize its full potential. As a result, the type of
younger firms in a resource-constrained state4 (Freeman, Carroll, & value that can and should be captured through various mechanisms at
Hannan, 1983). Additionally, our analysis shows that the focal firm’s different phases of the innovation process may also be influenced. This
value capture depends on the expertise and network position of the OI suggests that value capture is not merely a static phenomenon occurring
partner (Bouncken, Fredrich, Ritala, & Kraus, 2020; Ozmel et al., 2017), at a certain point in time, typically upon collaboration completion, but
the compatibility between partners (Runge et al., 2022; Yan et al., rather it must be continuously considered during the collaboration with
2020), knowledge resources of the focal firm (Chen et al., 2021; external actors (Reypens et al., 2016; Takahashi & Takahashi, 2022).
Devarakonda et al., 2022) and differs for SMEs and larger firms (Lv et al., This necessitates a more dynamic perspective on value capture in OI
2018). This illustrates that a multitude of focal firm, collaboration research. For example, researchers could examine whether firms that
partner, and situational factors influence actual value capture in OI. For engage in OI can capture certain types of value more quickly than those
example, Schäper et al. (2023) recently demonstrated that the rela­ involved in closed innovation (Milan, Ulrich, Faria, & Li-Ying, 2020;
tionship between OI and financial performance might be S-shaped and Toroslu, Herrmann, Chappin, Schemmann, & Castaldi, 2023).
vary according to the institutional setting. Utilizing machine-learning The study of value capture dynamics can also be linked to issues
content analysis, they create a longitudinal measure of firms’ degree raised in research area one. The importance and actual capture of
of openness and show that financial performance is highest for closed different financial and non-financial values might vary across different
innovation and medium levels of OI. Additionally, this relationship is phases of the innovation process. For example, when seeking suitable OI
more pronounced in industries with tight appropriability regime and partners, firms consider factors such as complementarity, compatibility,
weaker in dynamic industries. Our understanding of these situational and previous collaboration experiences (Arsanti, Rupidara, & Bondar­
conditions is still limited and requires further research attention. ouk, 2022; Manotungvorapun & Gerdsri, 2016; Solesvik & Gulbrandsen,
Next to differences among actor types, it is also important to consider 2013), as well as value appropriation opportunities (Diestre & Rajago­
variations in the geographical context where actors operate. In fact, palan, 2012). Once the OI activity is established, questions arise con­
research on value capture in OI has largely neglected the territorial cerning the temporal dimension of value capture. For example,
dimension of the underlying processes and has failed to connect its researchers could examine whether OI partners are satisfied with
findings to the extensive literature on regional clusters and regional receiving financial results at the end of the collaboration, or if tangible
innovation systems (Simard & West, 2006). Geography can play a role in outcomes are required during the ongoing OI activity to keep partners
various ways. For instance, certain forms of value may be easier to engaged. It would also be important to comprehend what types of value
capture from proximate actors rather than distant ones: there is, for (financial and/or non-financial) actors capture at each stage of the OI
example, evidence that technology licensing typically focuses on li­ lifecycle and how it affects their interest in OI and the likelihood of
censees from the same region of the licensor (Losacker, 2022). Broadly success (Stefan & Bengtsson, 2017). This aspect remains under-
speaking, geographical and institutional contexts shape the norms and researched and warrants further investigation.
regulations influencing the opportunities or barriers for value capture
(Cooke, 2005; Torres de Oliveira, Verreynne, Figueira, Indulska, & 5.4. Research area 4: Advancing the capture of societal value in the face
Steen, 2022). Some attempts have been made to incorporate insights of wicked problems
from geography into studies focusing on how companies organize their
OI activities in general (e.g., Laursen, Masciarelli, & Prencipe, 2012). The fourth area of future research concerns the role of value capture
Value capture activities could also be studied more through a in OI in the face of major societal and environmental challenges. Our
geographical lens, exploring whether companies are more likely to results show that OI can be a useful strategy for increasing network or
prioritize non-financial value capture with partners that are spatially environmental value (Garcia et al., 2019; Kim et al., 2019; Li-Ying et al.,
proximate, part of the same cluster, or in regions with higher social 2018; Reypens et al., 2016). However, firms are often reluctant to
capital. Recent research employing a geography of collaboration lens engage in co-creation when most of the resulting value is captured at the
shows that there is limited value capture for firms active in creative network or societal level (Garcia et al., 2019). This presents a challenge
industries that engage in OI outside regional markets (Audretsch & to the effective use of OI in addressing societal challenges or other
Belitski, 2023). Further investigations are needed to better map the wicked problems (Dahlander et al., 2021). Such challenges are charac­
heterogeneity of OI value capture processes in space. terized by high levels of complexity and task uncertainty, and therefore
demand attention and contribution of more than a single actor. At the
societal level, governments can step in to establish monetary and non-
monetary support systems to influence firm decisions when imple­
menting and managing OI activities (Ogink, Goossen, Romme, &
Akkermans, 2022).
In the face of such challenges, some firms have already opted to
4
The literature review by Spender, Corvello, Grimaldi, and Rippa (2017) on participate in OI. Examples of this include creating joint ventures in the
startups and OI briefly discusses the influence of collaborative relationships on automotive industry to develop sustainable alternatives or becoming
the performance of startups. part of the Open Covid Pledge to offer free licenses to intellectual

307
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

property that is otherwise restricted (McGahan, Bogers, Chesbrough, & to be aware that involvement in OI could, if not well managed, also lead
Holgersson, 2021). Recently, this topic has garnered the attention of to financial or non-financial value losses in case of IP infringements or
researchers who have examined the strengths and weakness of OI in through unwanted imitation or knowledge spillovers.
addressing wicked problems (Ooms & Piepenbrink, 2021; Randhawa, Second, managers should consider who wants to capture value from
West, Skellern, & Josserand, 2021; Seran & Bez, 2021). For instance, the OI process/project and what their needs and interests are. Thereby it
organizations can promote ecosystem development and encourage is not only important to consider the value capture needs of other or­
innovation by facilitating “outside-out” or “sideways” knowledge flows ganizations involved, but to also understand interests of individual ac­
among external actors (Attalah, Nylund, & Brem, 2023; Gutmann, tors or networks. They must also be aware that the value capture of
Chochoiek, & Chesbrough, 2023). In such situations, value capture actors not directly involved in the OI activity may also be affected.
mechanisms are necessary not only at the firm level, but also at the Third, managers are advised to carefully consider how they design
system or societal level, as the latter has a more ‘silent’ interest in the and administrate the OI process. When selecting innovation collabora­
success of the collaboration. The extent to which OI can be beneficial in tion partners, managers must be aware of their own firm’s characteris­
addressing and solving present and future wicked problems depends tics and the characteristics of potential partners. As a precondition for
largely on this tension between firm value creation and system value value capture, the focal firm especially in high-tech industries must
capture, as well as the unpredictability and distance of value capture by significantly investment in internal R&D and knowledge capacities,
the firm. As De Silva, Gokhberg, Meissner, and Russo (2021) demon­ enabling them to effectively absorb and integrate externally generated
strate with their conceptual framework, science-based co-creation gen­ knowledge. Regarding the characteristics of collaboration partners,
erates a range of social and business values (i.e. ‘dual’). However, its value capture is usually enhanced when partners share a similar
success depends on firms acknowledging that science-based collabora­ knowledge base or when partners possess more knowledge resources
tions are not purely financially motivated while at the same time they than the focal firm.
create some type of business value for the firm to capitalize on. There­ Once the OI process is established, there are various ways in which
fore, to fully comprehend the potential of OI, it is necessary to move managers can actively influence the value capture potential. This in­
beyond bilateral collaborations between firms and consider its broader volves setting clear value capture goals, defining roles and re­
impact on the larger societal or natural context (Bertello, Bogers, & De sponsibilities through contractual agreements, and fostering effective
Bernardi, 2022). coordination and cooperation among all parties involved. This includes
developing suitable incentives for each actor. To unlock the full poten­
5.5. Limitations, managerial implications, and conclusions tial of OI, managers should avoid an imbalance in the amount of value
captured by the actors involved, as this may negatively influence the
While our integrative literature review has provided valuable in­ willingness of some actors to co-create and bear innovation costs. This
sights into value capture in OI, there are limitations that should be can ultimately even lead to failure of collaborations and projects.
considered. First, we only focused on empirical articles, which may have Transparent guidelines, performance metrics, and reward systems
limited our understanding of the conceptual and theoretical aspects of should therefore be established to develop trust and to motivate all
value capture in OI. Future research could benefit from incorporating partners to actively contribute and engage in collaborative innovation
conceptual and theoretical articles to gain a more comprehensive un­ efforts. Lastly, managers are advised to strategically use formal and
derstanding of the topic. Second, our analysis of the selected articles was informal protection mechanisms (such as patents, trademarks, secrecy,
guided by three specific questions of ‘what’, ‘who’ and ‘how’. These or the selective revealing of information) that can positively impact
three key questions were derived from existing OI literature and inten­ value capture while also reducing the risk of intellectual property
tionally framed in a broad manner. While analyzing the literature, we infringement from collaboration partners.
did not encounter another broad theme of value capture touched on by Ideally, all actors want to be better off after engaging in OI (Ches­
the selected articles. Nonetheless, they shaped the focus of our analysis brough et al., 2018). Assuming we develop a deeper understanding of
of the literature. Therefore, we encourage future researchers to inves­ what each actor wants to capture, it is critical to study how firms or even
tigate alternative aspects to gain further insights into value capture in governments, in the case of societal/environmental value, can imple­
OI. ment mechanisms to ensure successful value capture for all stake­
In spite of these limitations, our findings systematize and integrate holders, not just the focal firm. Otherwise, participation in OI activities
existing evidence-based insights on value capture in OI. Our review may not be attractive or sustainable. To facilitate this discussion, we
bears managerial implications too. Managers of firms engaged in or have identified and proposed four key research areas to advance our
considering to engage in OI can use the research evidence presented in understanding of value capture in OI. These four trajectories relate to: 1)
this paper to inform their OI strategies. As noted in the introduction, Expanding concepts and measures of value; 2) advancing insights on
there is plenty of evidence that firms struggle to properly account for the contextual conditions that characterize the OI activity and establish
complexities and challenges of value capture in OI. Such issues can value capture potential; 3) improving our understanding of the dy­
jeopardize the efforts of building OI strategies in the first place. Based on namics of value capture throughout the entire lifecycle of OI; and 4)
our review findings we can offer managers a tentative ‘checklist’. The addressing value capture issues when tackling major societal and envi­
‘what’ question alerts managers of the different values that can be ronmental challenges of our time.
captured, the ‘who’ question reminds them of the different actors
involved and the ‘how’ question informs them of the different ways in Funding
which value can be captured.
First, regarding the types of value that can be captured managers This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
should consider what they want to gain from using OI. To harness the full agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
potential of OI they should not only focus on financial measures of value
(e.g., product sales or revenue/profits), instead they should also pay Declaration of Competing Interest
attention to non-financial measures of value (in particular: new or
improved products/services/processes, intellectual value, patents None.
granted/cited, innovation quality, or new partnerships/customers) –
especially when openly innovating with ex-ante unknown partners. Data availability
Some of the non-financial value is likely to lead to future financial value
capture. When considering what could be captured, managers also need No data was used for the research described in the article.

308
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

Appendix
Table A.1
Overview of articles that address the combination of what and how value is captured in OI.

Value capture mechanisms Factors facilitating / hindering value capture Contextual characteristics influencing value capture

Financial Chanal and Caron-Fasan (2010), Leten et al. Chanal and Caron-Fasan (2010), Bien et al. (2014), Jirjahn and Kraft (2011), Montoro-Sánchez et al.
value (2013), Demil and Lecocq (2014), Wadhwa et al. Morgan and Finnegan (2014), Williams and Vossen (2011), Wu et al. (2013), Belderbos et al. (2014),
(2017), Erickson (2018), de Oliveira et al. (2021), (2014), Kohler (2015), Kohler and Nickel (2017), Díez-Vial and Fernández-Olmos (2015), Garcia
Grimaldi et al. (2021) Wadhwa et al. (2017), Erickson (2018), Nagle Martinez et al. (2017), Zhang et al. (2017), Lv et al.
(2018), Basterretxea et al. (2019), Shaikh and Levina (2018), Sarpong and Teirlinck (2018), Chen et al.
(2019), Bouncken, Fredrich, and Kraus (2020), (2019), Zhang et al. (2019), Bouncken, Fredrich, and
Dell’Era et al. (2020), Pedersen et al. (2022) Kraus (2020), Hani and Dagnino (2020), Ko et al.
(2020), Zhang et al. (2020), Bernal et al. (2022),
Guerrero et al. (2022), Seo and Park (2022)
Non- Chanal and Caron-Fasan (2010), Hurmelinna- Chanal and Caron-Fasan (2010), Hurmelinna- Simonen and McCann (2008), Adegbesan and Higgins
financial Laukkanen and Ritala (2010), Leten et al. (2013), Laukkanen and Ritala (2010), Napp and Minshall (2011), Fernandes and Ferreira (2013), Arora et al.
value Demil and Lecocq (2014), Foege et al. (2017), (2011), Bien et al. (2014), Morgan and Finnegan (2016), Foege et al. (2017), Ozmel et al. (2017), Li-
Stefan and Bengtsson (2017), Erickson (2018), Elia (2014), Williams and Vossen (2014), Kohler (2015), Ying et al. (2018), Triguero and Fernández (2018),
et al. (2020), Heidemann Lassen et al. (2020) Reypens et al. (2016), Kohler and Nickel (2017), Arant et al. (2019), Tojeiro-Rivero and Moreno
Radziwon et al. (2017), Erickson (2018), Garcia et al. (2019), Bouncken, Fredrich, Ritala, and Kraus (2020),
(2019), Kim et al. (2019), Shaikh and Levina (2019), Fitjar and Rodríguez-Pose (2020), Hani and Dagnino
Elia et al. (2020), Ahlfänger et al. (2022), (2020), Wang and Jiang (2020), Yan et al. (2020),
Devarakonda et al. (2022), Takahashi and Takahashi Zhang et al. (2020), Chen et al. (2021), Murgia
(2022) (2021), Devarakonda et al. (2022), Runge et al.
(2022), Seo and Park (2022), Shkolnykova and Kudic
(2022), Zhang et al. (2022)

References Bernal, P., Carree, M., & Lokshin, B. (2022). Knowledge spillovers, R&D partnerships and
innovation performance. Technovation, 115, Article 102456. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102456
Abhari, K., & McGuckin, S. (2023). Limiting factors of open innovation organizations: A
Bertello, A., Bogers, M. L., & De Bernardi, P. (2022). Open innovation in the face of the
case of social product development and research agenda. Technovation, 119, Article
COVID-19 grand challenge: Insights from the Pan-European hackathon ‘EUvsVirus’.
102526. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102526
R&D Management, 52(2), 178–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/radm.12456
Adegbesan, J. A., & Higgins, M. J. (2011). The intra-alliance division of value created
Bien, H.-J., Ben, T.-M., & Wang, K.-F. (2014). Trust relationships within R&D networks: A
through collaboration. Strategic Management Journal, 32(2), 187–211. https://doi.
case study from the biotechnological industry. Innovation, 16(3), 354–373. https://
org/10.1002/smj.872
doi.org/10.1080/14479338.2014.11081993
Ahlfänger, M., Gemünden, H. G., & Leker, J. (2022). Balancing knowledge sharing with
Bogers, M. (2011). The open innovation paradox: Knowledge sharing and protection in
protecting: The efficacy of formal control in open innovation projects. International
R&D collaborations. European Journal of Innovation Management. https://doi.org/
Journal of Project Management, 40(2), 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1108/14601061111104715
ijproman.2021.09.007
Bogers, M., Chesbrough, H. W., & Moedas, C. (2018). Open innovation: Research,
Arant, W., Fornahl, D., Grashof, N., Hesse, K., & Söllner, C. (2019). University-industry
practices, and policies. California Management Review, 60(2), 5–16. https://doi.org/
collaborations—The key to radical innovations? Review of Regional Research, 39(2),
10.1177/0008125617745086
119–141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10037-019-00133-3
Bogers, M., & West, J. (2012). Managing distributed innovation: Strategic utilization of
Arora, A., Athreye, S., & Huang, C. (2016). The paradox of openness revisited:
open and user innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management, 21(1), 61–75.
Collaborative innovation and patenting by UK innovators. Research Policy, 45(7),
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2011.00622.x
1352–1361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.019
Bogers, M., Zobel, A.-K., Afuah, A., Almirall, E., Brunswicker, S., Dahlander, L.,
Arsanti, T. A., Rupidara, N. S., & Bondarouk, T. (2022). How to find the right partner?
Frederiksen, L., Gawer, A., Gruber, M., & Haefliger, S. (2017). The open innovation
Open innovation partner selection process. Administrative Sciences, 12(4), 165.
research landscape: Established perspectives and emerging themes across different
https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci12040165
levels of analysis. Industry and Innovation, 24(1), 8–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Attalah, I., Nylund, P. A., & Brem, A. (2023). Who captures value from hackathons?
13662716.2016.1240068
Innovation contests with collective intelligence tools bridging creativity and coupled
Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., & Kraus, S. (2020). Configurations of firm-level value
open innovation. Creativity and Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/
capture in coopetition. Long Range Planning, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
caim.12552
lrp.2019.02.002. Article 101869.
Audretsch, B. D., & Belitski, M. (2023). The limits to open innovation and its impact on
Bouncken, R. B., Fredrich, V., Ritala, P., & Kraus, S. (2020). Value-creation-capture-
innovation performance. Technovation, 119, Article 102519. https://doi.org/
equilibrium in new product development alliances: A matter of coopetition, expert
10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102519
power, and alliance importance. Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 648–662.
Bahemia, H., Sillince, J., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2018). The timing of openness in a radical
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.03.019
innovation project, a temporal and loose coupling perspective. Research Policy, 47
Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creation versus value capture: Towards a
(10), 2066–2076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.015
coherent definition of value in strategy. British Journal of Management, 11(1), 1–15.
Barbic, F., Jolink, A., Niesten, E., & Hidalgo, A. (2021). Opening and closing open
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00147
innovation projects: A contractual perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 94,
Chanal, V., & Caron-Fasan, M. L. (2010). The difficulties involved in developing business
174–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2021.02.014
models open to innovation communities: The case of a crowdsourcing platform.
Barge-Gil, A. (2013). Open strategies and innovation performance. Industry and
Management, 13(4), 318–341. https://doi.org/10.3917/mana.134.0318
Innovation, 20(7), 585–610. https://doi.org/10.1080/13662716.2013.849455
Chen, H., Yao, Y., Zan, A., & Carayannis, E. G. (2021). How does coopetition affect
Basterretxea, I., Charterina, J., & Landeta, J. (2019). Coopetition and innovation. Lessons
radical innovation? The roles of internal knowledge structure and external
from worker cooperatives in the Spanish machine tool industry. The Journal of
knowledge integration. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. https://doi.
Business and Industrial Marketing. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-01-2018-0015
org/10.1108/JBIM-05-2019-0257
Belderbos, R., Cassiman, B., Faems, D., Leten, B., & Van Looy, B. (2014). Co-ownership of
Chen, H., Zeng, S., Yu, B., & Xue, H. (2019). Complementarity in open innovation and
intellectual property: Exploring the value-appropriation and value-creation
corporate strategy: The moderating effect of ownership and location strategies. IEEE
implications of co-patenting with different partners. Research Policy, 43(5), 841–852.
Transactions on Engineering Management, 67(3), 754–768. Article 8625450
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2013.08.013
https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2018.2889804.
Belderbos, R., Gilsing, V., Lokshin, B., Carree, M., & Sastre, J. F. (2018). The antecedents
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting
of new R&D collaborations with different partner types: On the dynamics of past
from technology. Harvard Business Press.
R&D collaboration and innovative performance. Long Range Planning, 51(2),
Chesbrough, H. W., & Bogers, M. (2014). Explicating open innovation: Clarifying an
285–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lrp.2017.10.002
emerging paradigm for understanding innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough,
W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), New frontiers in open innovation (pp. 3–28).

309
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

Forthcoming: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/ Garcia, R., Wigger, K., & Hermann, R. R. (2019). Challenges of creating and capturing
9780199682461.003.0001. value in open eco-innovation: Evidence from the maritime industry in Denmark.
Chesbrough, H. W., Lettl, C., & Ritter, T. (2018). Value creation and value capture in Journal of Cleaner Production, 220, 642–654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(6), 930–938. https:// jclepro.2019.02.027
doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12471 Granstrand, O., & Holgersson, M. (2014). The challenge of closing open innovation: The
Chesbrough, H. W., & Rosenbloom, R. S. (2002). The role of the business model in intellectual property disassembly problem. Research-Technology Management, 57(5),
capturing value from innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s technology 19–25. https://doi.org/10.5437/08956308X5705258
spin-off companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11(3), 529–555. https://doi. Greco, M., Campagna, M., Cricelli, L., Grimaldi, M., & Strazzullo, S. (2022). COVID-19-
org/10.1093/icc/11.3.529 related innovations: A study on underlying motivations and inter-organizational
Cooke, P. (2005). Regionally asymmetric knowledge capabilities and open innovation: collaboration. Industrial Marketing Management, 106, 58–70. https://doi.org/
Exploring ‘Globalisation 2’—A new model of industry organisation. Research Policy, 10.1016/j.indmarman.2022.07.014
34(8), 1128–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2004.12.005 Grimaldi, M., Greco, M., & Cricelli, L. (2021). A framework of intellectual property
Cricelli, L., Grimaldi, M., & Vermicelli, S. (2022). Crowdsourcing and open innovation: A protection strategies and open innovation. Journal of Business Research, 123,
systematic literature review, an integrated framework and a research agenda. Review 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.043
of Managerial Science, 16(5), 1269–1310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-021- Guerrero, A. J., Heijs, J., & Huergo, E. (2022). The effect of technological relatedness on
00482-9 firm sales evolution through external knowledge sourcing. The Journal of Technology
Dahlander, L., & Gann, D. M. (2010). How open is innovation? Research Policy, 39(6), Transfer, 1-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-022-09931-3
699–709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.013 Gutmann, T., Chochoiek, C., & Chesbrough, H. (2023). Extending open innovation:
Dahlander, L., Gann, D. M., & Wallin, M. W. (2021). How open is innovation? A Orchestrating knowledge flows from corporate venture capital investments.
retrospective and ideas forward. Research Policy, 50(4), Article 104218. https://doi. California Management Review, 00081256221147342. https://doi.org/10.1177/
org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104218 00081256221147342
De Silva, M., Gokhberg, L., Meissner, D., & Russo, M. (2021). Addressing societal Hani, M., & Dagnino, G. B. (2020). Global network coopetition, firm innovation and
challenges through the simultaneous generation of social and business values: A value creation. The Journal of Business and Industrial Marketing. https://doi.org/
conceptual framework for science-based co-creation. Technovation, 104, Article 10.1108/JBIM-05-2019-0268
102268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102268 Heidemann Lassen, A., Ljungberg, D., & McKelvey, M. (2020). Promoting future
Dedrick, J., & Kraemer, K. L. (2015). Who captures value from science-based innovation? sustainable transition by overcoming the openness paradox in KIE firms.
The distribution of benefits from GMR in the hard disk drive industry. Research Sustainability, 12(24), 10567. https://doi.org/10.3390/su122410567
Policy, 44(8), 1615–1628. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2015.06.011 Hossain, M., & Islam, K. Z. (2015). Generating ideas on online platforms: A case study of
Dell’Era, C., Di Minin, A., Ferrigno, G., Frattini, F., Landoni, P., & Verganti, R. (2020). “My Starbucks Idea”. Arab Economic and Business Journal, 10(2), 102–111. https://
Value capture in open innovation processes with radical circles: A qualitative doi.org/10.1016/j.aebj.2015.09.001
analysis of firms’ collaborations with Slow Food, Memphis, and Free Software Huang, M.-H., & Rust, R. T. (2017). Technology-driven service strategy. Journal of the
Foundation. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 158. https://doi.org/ Academy of Marketing Science, 45(6), 906–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-
10.1016/j.techfore.2020.120128. Article 120128. 017-0545-6
Demil, B., & Lecocq, X. (2014). The rise and fall of an open business model. Revue Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Ritala, P. (2010). Protection for profiting from
d’Économie Industrielle, 146(2), 85–113. https://doi.org/10.4000/rei.5803 collaborative service innovation. Journal of Service Management, 21(1), 6–24.
Devarakonda, R., Reuer, J. J., & Tadikonda, H. (2022). Founder social capital and value https://doi.org/10.1108/09564231011025092
appropriation in R&D alliance agreements. Research Policy, 51(4), Article 104474. Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Yang, J. (2022). Distinguishing between appropriability
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104474 and appropriation: A systematic review and a renewed conceptual framing. Research
Diestre, L., & Rajagopalan, N. (2012). Are all ‘sharks’ dangerous? New biotechnology Policy, 51(1), Article 104417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104417
ventures and partner selection in R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 33 Jacobides, M. G., Knudsen, T., & Augier, M. (2006). Benefiting from innovation: Value
(10), 1115–1134. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.1978 creation, value appropriation and the role of industry architectures. Research Policy,
Díez-Vial, I., & Fernández-Olmos, M. (2015). Knowledge spillovers in science and 35(8), 1200–1221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.005
technology parks: How can firms benefit most? The Journal of Technology Transfer, 40 Jirjahn, U., & Kraft, K. (2011). Do spillovers stimulate incremental or drastic product
(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-013-9329-4 innovations? Evidence from German establishment data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics
Dutton, W. H. (2008). The wisdom of collaborative network organizations: Capturing the and Statistics, 73(4), 509–538. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2010.00618.x
value of networked individuals. Prometheus (United Kingdom), 26(3), 211–230. de Jong, S., Oosterveld, W. T., De Spiegeleire, S., Bekkers, F., Usanov, A., Salah, K. E., …
https://doi.org/10.1080/08109020802270182 Polácková, D. (2016). Better together: Towards a new cooperation portfolio for defense.
Ebersberger, B., Bloch, C., Herstad, S. J., & Van De Velde, E. (2012). Open innovation The Hague Centre for Strategic Studies.
practices and their effect on innovation performance. International Journal of Kim, J., Cho, S., & Ramesh, B. (2019). IT-leveraged network value cocreation: A case
Innovation and Technology Management, 9(06), 1250040. https://doi.org/10.1142/ study of the value cocreation process and value capture in the south Korean
S021987701250040X broadcast advertising industry. European Journal of Information Systems, 28(6),
Ebersberger, B., Galia, F., Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2021). Inbound open innovation and 646–662. https://doi.org/10.1080/0960085X.2019.1669494
innovation performance: A robustness study. Research Policy, 50(7), Article 104271. Ko, Y., Chung, Y., & Seo, H. (2020). Coopetition for sustainable competitiveness: R&D
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2021.104271 collaboration in perspective of productivity. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(19),
Elia, G., Messeni Petruzzelli, A., & Urbinati, A. (2020). Implementing open innovation 1–18. Article 7993 https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197993.
through virtual brand communities: A case study analysis in the semiconductor Kohler, T. (2015). Crowdsourcing-based business models: How to create and capture
industry. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 155. https://doi.org/10.1016/ value. California Management Review, 57(4), 63–84. https://doi.org/10.1525/
j.techfore.2020.119994. Article 119994. cmr.2015.57.4.63
Erickson, K. (2018). Can creative firms thrive without copyright? Value generation and Kohler, T., & Nickel, M. (2017). Crowdsourcing business models that last. Journal of
capture from private-collective innovation. Business Horizons, 61(5), 699–709. Business Strategy, 38(2), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-10-2016-0120
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2018.04.005 Lakhani, K. R., & Lonstein, E. (2008). InnoCentive. com (A). Harvard Business School Case,
Fernandes, C. I., & Ferreira, J. J. (2013). Knowledge spillovers: Cooperation between 608, 170.
universities and KIBS. R&D Management, 43(5), 461–472. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Laursen, K., Masciarelli, F., & Prencipe, A. (2012). Regions matter: How localized social
radm.12024 capital affects innovation and external knowledge acquisition. Organization Science,
Fitjar, R. D., & Rodríguez-Pose, A. (2020). Where cities fail to triumph: The impact of 23(1), 177–193. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1110.0650
urban location and local collaboration on innovation in Norway. Journal of Regional Laursen, K., & Salter, A. (2006). Open for innovation: The role of openness in explaining
Science, 60(1), 5–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12461 innovation performance among UK manufacturing firms. Strategic Management
Foege, J. N., Lauritzen, G. D., Tietze, F., & Salge, T. O. (2019). Reconceptualizing the Journal, 27(2), 131–150. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.507
paradox of openness: How solvers navigate sharing-protecting tensions in Laursen, K., & Salter, A. J. (2014). The paradox of openness: Appropriability, external
crowdsourcing. Research Policy, 48(6), 1323–1339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. search and collaboration. Research Policy, 43(5), 867–878. https://doi.org/10.1016/
respol.2019.01.013 j.respol.2013.10.004
Foege, J. N., Piening, E. P., & Salge, T. O. (2017). Don’t get caught on the wrong foot: A Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creation and value capture: A
resource-based perspective on imitation threats in innovation partnerships. multilevel perspective. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180–194. https://doi.
International Journal of Innovation Management, 21(3). https://doi.org/10.1142/ org/10.5465/amr.2007.23464011
S1363919617500232. Article 1750023. Leten, B., Vanhaverbeke, W., Roijakkers, N., Clerix, A., & Van Helleputte, J. (2013). IP
Franke, N., Keinz, P., & Klausberger, K. (2013). “Does this sound like a fair deal?”: models to orchestrate innovation ecosystems: IMEC, a public research institute in
Antecedents and consequences of fairness expectations in the individual’s decision to nano-electronics. California Management Review, 55(4), 51–64. https://doi.org/
participate in firm innovation. Organization Science, 24(5), 1495–1516. https://doi. 10.1525/cmr.2013.55.4.51
org/10.1287/orsc.1120.0794 Li-Ying, J., Mothe, C., & Nguyen, T. T. U. (2018). Linking forms of inbound open
Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan, M. T. (1983). The liability of newness: Age innovation to a driver-based typology of environmental innovation: Evidence from
dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48(5), French manufacturing firms. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 135, 51–63.
692–710. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094928 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2017.05.031
Garcia Martinez, M., Zouaghi, F., & Sanchez Garcia, M. (2017). Capturing value from Losacker, S. (2022). ‘License to green’: Regional patent licensing networks and green
alliance portfolio diversity: The mediating role of R&D human capital in high and technology diffusion in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 175,
low tech industries. Technovation, 59, 55–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Article 121336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121336
technovation.2016.06.003

310
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

Lv, D. D., Zeng, P., & Lan, H. (2018). Co-patent, financing constraints, and innovation in collaborative solutions. International Journal of Technology Management, 75(1–4),
SMEs: An empirical analysis using market value panel data of listed firms. Journal of 73–96. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTM.2017.085694
Engineering and Technology Management - JET-M, 48, 15–27. https://doi.org/ Randhawa, K., West, J., Skellern, K., & Josserand, E. (2021). Evolving a value chain to an
10.1016/j.jengtecman.2018.02.001 open innovation ecosystem: Cognitive engagement of stakeholders in customizing
Majchrzak, A., Bogers, M. L., Chesbrough, H., & Holgersson, M. (2023). Creating and medical implants. California Management Review, 63(2), 101–134. https://doi.org/
capturing value from open innovation: Humans, firms, platforms, and ecosystems. 10.1177/0008125620974435
California Management Review, 00081256231158830. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Reypens, C., Lievens, A., & Blazevic, V. (2016). Leveraging value in multi-stakeholder
00081256231158830 innovation networks: A process framework for value co-creation and capture.
Manotungvorapun, N., & Gerdsri, N. (2016). Complementarity vs. compatibility: What Industrial Marketing Management, 56, 40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
really matters for partner selection in open innovation? International Journal of indmarman.2016.03.005
Transitions and Innovation Systems, 5(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1504/ Runge, S., Schwens, C., & Schulz, M. (2022). The invention performance implications of
IJTIS.2016.082063 coopetition: How technological, geographical, and product market overlaps shape
McGahan, A. M., Bogers, M. L., Chesbrough, H. W., & Holgersson, M. (2021). Tackling learning and competitive tension in R&D alliances. Strategic Management Journal, 43
societal challenges with open innovation. California Management Review, 63(2), (2), 266–294. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3334
49–61. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620973713 Sarpong, O., & Teirlinck, P. (2018). The influence of functional and geographical
de Melo, J. C. F., Salerno, M. S., Freitas, J. S., Bagno, R. B., & Brasil, V. C. (2021). Reprint diversity in collaboration on product innovation performance in SMEs. The Journal of
of: From open innovation projects to open innovation project management Technology Transfer, 43(6), 1667–1695. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-017-9582-
capabilities: A process-based approach. International Journal of Project Management, z
39(2), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2021.01.003 Schäper, T., Jung, C., Foege, J. N., Bogers, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., & Nüesch, S. (2023). The
Mele, C., & Russo-Spena, T. (2015). Innomediary agency and practices in shaping market S-shaped relationship between open innovation and financial performance: A
innovation. Industrial Marketing Management, 44, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. longitudinal perspective using a novel text-based measure. Research Policy, 52(6),
indmarman.2014.10.006 Article 104764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104764
Milan, E., Ulrich, F., Faria, L. G., & Li-Ying, J. (2020). Exploring the impact of Seo, R., & Park, J.-H. (2022). When is interorganizational learning beneficial for inbound
organisational, technological and relational contingencies on innovation speed in the open innovation of ventures? A contingent role of entrepreneurial orientation.
light of open innovation. Industry and Innovation, 27(7), 804–836. https://doi.org/ Technovation, 116, Article 102514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
10.1080/13662716.2020.1754170 technovation.2022.102514
Miozzo, M., Desyllas, P., Lee, H. F., & Miles, I. (2016). Innovation collaboration and Seran, T., & Bez, S. M. (2021). Open innovation’s “Multiunit Back-End Problem”: How
appropriability by knowledge-intensive business services firms. Research Policy, 45 corporations can overcome business unit rivalry. California Management Review, 63
(7), 1337–1351. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2016.03.018 (2), 135–157. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620968609
Moghaddam, E. N., Aliahmadi, A., Bagherzadeh, M., Markovic, S., Micevski, M., & Shaikh, M., & Levina, N. (2019). Selecting an open innovation community as an alliance
Saghafi, F. (2023). Let me choose what I want: The influence of incentive choice partner: Looking for healthy communities and ecosystems. Research Policy, 48(8).
flexibility on the quality of crowdsourcing solutions to innovation problems. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.03.011. Article 103766.
Technovation, 120, Article 102679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Shkolnykova, M., & Kudic, M. (2022). Who benefits from SMEs’ radical innovations?—
technovation.2022.102679 Empirical evidence from German biotechnology. Small Business Economics, 58(2),
Mongeon, P., & Paul-Hus, A. (2016). The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: 1157–1185. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11187-021-00464-x
A comparative analysis. Scientometrics, 106(1), 213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Simard, C., & West, J. (2006). Knowledge networks and the geographic locus of
s11192-015-1765-5 innovation. In H. W. Chesbrough, W. Vanhaverbeke, & J. West (Eds.), Open
Montoro-Sánchez, A., Ortiz-de-Urbina-Criado, M., & Mora-Valentín, E. M. (2011). Effects innovation: Researching a new paradigm (pp. 220–240). Oxford University Press.
of knowledge spillovers on innovation and collaboration in science and technology Simonen, J., & McCann, P. (2008). Innovation, R&D cooperation and labor recruitment:
parks. Journal of Knowledge Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/ Evidence from Finland. Small Business Economics, 31(2), 181–194. https://doi.org/
13673271111179307 10.1007/s11187-007-9089-3
Morgan, L., & Finnegan, P. (2014). Beyond free software: An exploration of the business Smith, W. K., & Lewis, M. W. (2011). Toward a theory of paradox: A dynamic equilibrium
value of strategic open source. Journal of Strategic Information Systems, 23(3), model of organizing. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 381–403. https://doi.
226–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2014.07.001 org/10.5465/amr.2009.0223
Murgia, G. (2021). The impact of collaboration diversity and joint experience on the Solesvik, M., & Gulbrandsen, M. (2013). Partner selection for open innovation.
reiteration of university co-patents. Journal of Technology Transfer, 46(4), Technology Innovation Management Review, 3(4), 6–11. https://doi.org/10.22215/
1108–1143. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-018-9664-6 timreview/674
Nagle, F. (2018). Learning by contributing: Gaining competitive advantage through Spender, J.-C., Corvello, V., Grimaldi, M., & Rippa, P. (2017). Startups and open
contribution to crowdsourced public goods. Organization Science, 29(4), 569–587. innovation: A review of the literature. European Journal of Innovation Management.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2018.1202 https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2015-0131
Napp, J. J., & Minshall, T. (2011). Corporate venture capital investments for enhancing Stefan, I., & Bengtsson, L. (2017). Unravelling appropriability mechanisms and openness
innovation: Challenges and solutions. Research-Technology Management, 54(2), depth effects on firm performance across stages in the innovation process.
27–36. https://doi.org/10.5437/08953608X5402004 Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 120, 252–260. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Niesten, E., & Stefan, I. (2019). Embracing the paradox of interorganizational value co- j.techfore.2017.03.014
creation–value capture: A literature review towards paradox resolution. International Stefan, I., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., & Vanhaverbeke, W. (2021). Trajectories towards
Journal of Management Reviews, 21(2), 231–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/ balancing value creation and capture: Resolution paths and tension loops in open
ijmr.12196 innovation projects. International Journal of Project Management. https://doi.org/
O’Brien, I. M., Jarvis, W., & Soutar, G. N. (2015). Integrating social issues and customer 10.1016/j.ijproman.2020.06.004
engagement to drive loyalty in a service organisation. Journal of Services Marketing. Stefan, I., Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P., Vanhaverbeke, W., & Oikarinen, E.-L. (2022). The
https://doi.org/10.1108/JSM-02-2015-0085 dark side of open innovation: Individual affective responses as hidden tolls of the
Ogink, R. H., Goossen, M. C., Romme, A. G. L., & Akkermans, H. (2022). Mechanisms in paradox of openness. Journal of Business Research, 138, 360–373. https://doi.org/
open innovation: A review and synthesis of the literature. Technovation, 102621. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.09.028
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2022.102621 Takahashi, S., & Takahashi, V. P. (2022). Analysis of front end dynamic in the value co-
de Oliveira, R. T., Verreynne, M.-L., Steen, J., & Indulska, M. (2021). Creating value by creation with multiple stakeholders. International Journal of Managing Projects in
giving away: A typology of different innovation revealing strategies. Journal of Business(ahead-of-print).. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJMPB-11-2021-0301
Business Research, 127, 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.01.038 Teece, D. J. (1986). Profiting from technological innovation: Implications for integration,
Ooms, W., & Piepenbrink, R. (2021). Open innovation for wicked problems: Using collaboration, licensing and public policy. Research Policy, 15(6), 285–305. https://
proximity to overcome barriers. California Management Review, 63(2), 62–100. doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(86)90027-2
https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125620968636 Tojeiro-Rivero, D., & Moreno, R. (2019). Technological cooperation, R&D outsourcing,
Ozmel, U., Yavuz, D., Reuer, J. J., & Zenger, T. (2017). Network prominence, bargaining and innovation performance at the firm level: The role of the regional context.
power, and the allocation of value capturing rights in high-tech alliance contracts. Research Policy, 48(7), 1798–1808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2019.04.006
Organization Science, 28(5), 947–964. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1147 Toroslu, A., Herrmann, A. M., Chappin, M. M. H., Schemmann, B., & Castaldi, C. (2023).
Pedersen, S., Bogers, M. L., & Clausen, C. (2022). Navigating collaborative open Open innovation in nascent ventures: Does openness influence the speed of reaching
innovation projects: Staging negotiations of actors’ concerns. Creativity and critical milestones? Technovation, 124, 102732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Innovation Management. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12492 technovation.2023.102732
Piller, F. T., Roberts, D., Spedale, S., Chesbrough, H. W., Majchrzak, A., McCarthy, I., & Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples.
Tucci, C. L. (2020). The need for a new narrative on value capture in open Human Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1177/
innovation environments. In Proceedings of the academy of management annual 1534484305278283
meeting. Torraco, R. J. (2016). Writing integrative literature reviews: Using the past and present
Pisano, G. (2006). Profiting from innovation and the intellectual property revolution. to explore the future. Human Resource Development Review, 15(4), 404–428. https://
Research Policy, 35(8), 1122–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.09.008 doi.org/10.1177/1534484316671606
Pisano, G. P., & Teece, D. J. (2007). How to capture value from innovation: Shaping Torres de Oliveira, R., Verreynne, M.-L., Figueira, S., Indulska, M., & Steen, J. (2022).
intellectual property and industry architecture. California Management Review, 50(1), How do institutional innovation systems affect open innovation? Journal of Small
278–296. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166428 Business Management, 60(6), 1404–1448. https://doi.org/10.1080/
Radziwon, A., Bogers, M., & Bilberg, A. (2017). Creating and capturing value in a 00472778.2020.1775466
regional innovation ecosystem: A study of how manufacturing SMEs develop

311
A. Toroslu et al. Industrial Marketing Management 114 (2023) 297–312

Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing Wu, Y. C., Lin, B. W., & Chen, C. J. (2013). How do internal openness and external
evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British openness affect innovation capabilities and firm performance? IEEE Transactions on
Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375 Engineering Management, 60(4), 704–716. Article 6520890 https://doi.org/10.11
Triguero, A., & Fernández, S. (2018). Determining the effects of open innovation: The 09/TEM.2013.2262050.
role of knowledge and geographical spillovers. Regional Studies, 52(5), 632–644. Yan, Y., Dong, J. Q., & Faems, D. (2020). Not every coopetitor is the same: The impact of
https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2017.1395004 technological, market and geographical overlap with coopetitors on firms’
Vahter, P., Love, J. H., & Roper, S. (2014). Openness and innovation performance: Are breakthrough inventions. Long Range Planning, 53(1), Article 101873. https://doi.
small firms different? Industry and Innovation, 21(7–8), 553–573. https://doi.org/ org/10.1016/j.lrp.2019.02.006
10.1080/13662716.2015.1012825 Zhang, D., Li, S., & Zheng, D. (2017). Knowledge search and open innovation
Wadhwa, A., Bodas Freitas, I. M., & Sarkar, M. (2017). The paradox of openness and performance in an emerging market: Moderating effects of government-enterprise
value protection strategies: Effect of extramural R&D on innovative performance. relationship and market focus. Management Decision. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-
Organization Science, 28(5), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2017.1145 04-2016-0211
Wang, B., & Li, Z. (2021). The relationship between non-pecuniary outbound openness Zhang, J., Jiang, H., Wu, R., & Li, J. (2019). Reconciling the dilemma of knowledge
and profit in large firms. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 1-13. https:// sharing: A network pluralism framework of firms’ R&D alliance network and
doi.org/10.1080/09537325.2021.2011853 innovation performance. Journal of Management, 45(7), 2635–2665. https://doi.org/
Wang, Z., & Jiang, Z. (2020). How R&D originality affects open innovation under 10.1177/0149206318761575
knowledge spillovers? European Journal of Innovation Management, 23(4), 604–628. Zhang, S., Xu, X., Wang, F., & Zhang, J. (2022). Can cooperation stimulate firms’ eco-
https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-12-2018-0276 innovation? Firm-level Evidence from China.. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-
Watson, R., Wilson, H. N., Smart, P., & Macdonald, E. K. (2018). Harnessing difference: A 1269079/v1
capability-based framework for stakeholder engagement in environmental Zhang, X., Duan, K., Zhao, H., Zhao, Y., Wang, X., & de Pablos, P. O. (2020). Can
innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 35(2), 254–279. https://doi. cooperation drive the success of suppliers in B2B crowdsourcing innovation projects?
org/10.1111/jpim.12394 A large scale data perspective. Industrial Marketing Management, 90, 570–580.
West, J., & Bogers, M. (2014). Leveraging external sources of innovation: A review of https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2019.09.011
research on open innovation. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 31(4), Zynga, A., Diener, K., Ihl, C., Lüttgens, D., Piller, F., & Scherb, B. (2018). Making open
814–831. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpim.12125 innovation stick: A study of open innovation implementation in 756 global
Williams, C., & Vossen, J. (2014). How open do MNCs need to be to extract value in open organizations. Research-Technology Management, 61(4), 16–25. https://doi.org/
innovation? International Journal of Innovation Management, 18(5). https://doi.org/ 10.1080/08956308.2018.1471273
10.1142/S1363919614500352. Article 1450035.

312