Content uploaded by Fabio Orecchini
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Fabio Orecchini on Oct 15, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
1 23
Sustainability Science
ISSN 1862-4065
Sustain Sci
DOI 10.1007/s11625-011-0151-3
Industry and academia for a transition
towards sustainability: advancing
sustainability science through university–
business collaborations
Fabio Orecchini, Valeria Valitutti &
Giorgio Vitali
1 23
Your article is protected by copyright and all
rights are held exclusively by Springer. This
e-offprint is for personal use only and shall
not be self-archived in electronic repositories.
If you wish to self-archive your work, please
use the accepted author’s version for posting
to your own website or your institution’s
repository. You may further deposit the
accepted author’s version on a funder’s
repository at a funder’s request, provided it is
not made publicly available until 12 months
after publication.
SPECIAL FEATURE: OVERVIEW ARTICLE Sustainability science: bridging the gap
between science and society
Industry and academia for a transition towards sustainability:
advancing sustainability science through university–business
collaborations
Fabio Orecchini •Valeria Valitutti •
Giorgio Vitali
Received: 8 October 2011 / Accepted: 17 December 2011
Springer 2012
Abstract This paper gathers evidence from the current
crisis in sustainability, which indeed has led to unsustainable
global, social and human systems, to reaffirm the increasing
importance of the business sector, not only in terms of its
central role in the achievement of the current unsustainable
path, but above all the role still to be played by business in the
transition towards sustainability. Principally, this review
focuses on the concept of business sustainability and calls for
the necessity of collaboration between industry and acade-
mia within the context of sustainability science. To provide a
reasoned and robust argument, the main co-operation
modalities and best practice currently applied out of the
sustainability science paradigm are reviewed. Furthermore,
collaborations between industry and academia experienced
within the framework of International Conferences on Sus-
tainability Science (ICSS) are analyzed, by describing the
founding principles of the innovative scientific paradigm, its
evolution and its application to the field. In addition, the
manuscript stresses the current relevance of the sustain-
ability science discipline while attempting to institutionalize
a collaborative and participative process, and confronts
the expected outcomes with the obstacles faced. Finally, the
paper proposes a series of recommendations for conducting
successful business–academic collaborations within the
framework of sustainability science.
Keywords Sustainability Science University
Business Collaborations
The sustainability crisis: the unsustainable path
From a historical perspective, pro-growth economic poli-
cies have encouraged rapid accumulation of natural,
financial and human capital. As a result, an excessive
depletion and degradation of natural resources has been
experienced in conjunction with a strong impact on social,
environmental and economic equilibria. By depleting the
world’s stock of natural wealth—often irreversibly—the
prevailing, and predominant, economic and development
models have had detrimental impacts on the wellbeing of
present generations. Concomitantly, they also present tre-
mendous risks and challenges for future generations.
Strong messages about the state of the planet have been
expressed by a wide range of scientific communities and
international organizations: the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment (Reid et al. 2005), the Stern Review (Stern
2006), the Fourth Assessment Report by IPCC (2007), the
fourth Global Environmental Outlook (UNEP 2007) and
Human Development Reports (UNDP 2007,2009). More-
over, the World Bank joined this chorus by publishing a dire
outlook on global food security and the impact of climate
change (World Bank 2007,2009). Furthermore, according
the Ecological Footprint Index, humanity uses at present the
equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and
to absorb the waste produced (Ewing et al. 2010).
Handled by Masaru Yarime, The University of Tokyo, Japan.
F. Orecchini (&)
Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
e-mail: fabio.orecchini@uniroma1.it
F. Orecchini
Guglielmo Marconi University, Rome, Italy
V. Valitutti G. Vitali
CIRPS Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy
e-mail: valeria.valitutti@uniroma1.it
G. Vitali
e-mail: grgvitali@gmail.com
123
Sustain Sci
DOI 10.1007/s11625-011-0151-3
Author's personal copy
To summarize, anthropogenic influences on global life
support systems have reached a magnitude unprecedented in
human history (Jerneck et al. 2010) and it is recognized widely
that we are now facing a crisis in sustainability, mostly
because of the industrialization that followed the industrial
revolution (Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006) and the correlated
rapid, but globally disproportionate, economic growth.
On the one hand, the industrial revolution can be con-
sidered as the root that fostered tremendous population
growth, changes in global lifestyles and consumption pat-
terns, increased pressure on natural resources as well as a
decrease in environmental quality. On the other hand, the
different speed and timing with which the revolution and
GDP increases occurred across nations can be considered
as the main cause of world inequality.
The millennial perspective provided by Professor Angus
Maddison, in his work for the OECD ‘‘The World Econ-
omy: A millennial perspective’’, shows the magnitude of
the before recalled changes, when looking at greater his-
torical time horizons (Maddison 2006: Figs. 1,2).
Global inequality is confirmed to be a central issue by the
fact that, in spite of the advanced state of many contemporary
societies and economies and of constant growth in world
GDP (Fig. 1), we clearly see some troubling contradictions.
Notably, there is a stark inequality between those with access
to the fruits of advanced development, and those living in
contexts where that advancement is impeded by lack of
access to what others take for granted (UNEP 2011). Two
emblematic examples illustrate this point:
•Nearly 1 billion people lack access to clean drinking
water, and 2.6 billion lack access to improved sanita-
tion services (WHO 2010);
•Approximately 1.4 billion people lack access to elec-
tricity (IEA 2010b).
Reactions to the sustainability crisis: scientific
evolution and global commitment
Generally speaking, corroboration of the relevance of the
current crisis in sustainability has been crystallized clearly
in a comprehensive study published recently by the United
Nations Environmental Program (UNEP 2011): the Green
Economy Report. The latter describes the state of the art of
the current sustainability crisis as well as its main drivers.
In addition, the report calls for global action aimed at the
achievement of a greener economy and a sustainable
development.
The recent multiple crises—economical, institutional,
financial and environmental—are symptomatic of models
and mindsets commonly shared in the past among gover-
nors, politicians and business leaders that often considered
the world as in infinite reservoir. Fortunately, in more
recent times, world leaders are now convinced of the
necessity of a ‘‘Global Green New Deal’’ (UNEP 2009,
2010a,b) and about the need to place sustainability at the
top of the global agenda.
It is worth mentioning that the achievement of such
widespread and radicated awareness has required almost
half a century. Trends, risks and the unsustainability of
consequences deriving from ‘‘exponential growth’’ of key
drivers determining world economic growth were first
highlighted internationally during the 1970s by the scien-
tific efforts of the Club of Rome, through its reports
‘‘ Limits to Growth’’ (Meadows et al. 2004).
During these same 50-odd years, the environment (local
to global), became a key focus of national and international
laws and institutions. As a matter of fact, in the 1970s and
1980s, World Commissions of notables were created to
study such international concerns, producing major
documents that were often followed by global conferences.
In 1972, the Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment—at which the conflicts between environment
1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 4,000,000 5,000,000 6,000,000
1
-
1500
1700
1870
1950
2001
Total Western Europe Eastern Europe
Former USSR Total Western Offshoots
Total Latin America Japan
Total Asia (excluding Japan)
Africa
Fig. 1 World GDP, 20 countries and regional totals, 1–2001 AD
(million 1990 international Geary-Khamis dollars). Reproduced from
Maddison 2006. The Geary-Khamis method is one of the most
commonly used methods of aggregation in multilateral comparisons
when using PPA technique
10,000,000 20,000,000 30,000,000 40,000,000
1
1500
1700
1870
1950
2001
Total Western Europe Eastern Europe
Former USSR Total Western Offshoots
Total Latin America Japan
Total Asia (excluding Japan)
Africa
-
Fig. 2 World population, 20 countries and regional totals, 1–2001
AD (000). Reproduced from Maddison 2006
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
and development were first acknowledged—took place, and
in 1980, the World Conservation Strategy of the Interna-
tional Union for the Conservation of Nature—which argued
for conservation as a means to assist development and
specifically for the sustainable development and utilization
of species, ecosystems, and resources (IUCN 1980)—was
developed. Drawing on these earlier events, the Brundtland
Commission began its work committed to the unity of
environment and development (Kates et al. 2005).
In fact, with the publication of the ‘Brundtland Report’
(WCED 1987), the concept of sustainable development
became a well-known notion in the overall international
community and gained the attention of governments, civil
society and industrial sectors on top of international insti-
tutions or fora. In a word, the Brundtland Report had the
incontestable merit of turning on the lights and convincing
the entire world of the unsustainable accelerating deterio-
ration of both the human environment and natural resour-
ces as well as the related consequences of this deterioration
for economic and social equilibria.
As a consequence, throughout the 1990s, an increasing
number of local authorities, corporations and nations began
to integrate the sustainability thinking articulated by the
Brundtland Commission, into their planning and opera-
tions. And by the beginning of the twenty-first century,
sustainable development had taken its place at the high
table of global affairs. Interest in creating a sustainable
society had been building among politicians, business
leaders (WBCSD 2010) and the general public as well as
becoming the mission of educational and research pro-
grams worldwide. This is particularly evident in the current
debate on sustainability and the level to which the issue has
risen on the global political agenda, especially after the
current economic crisis began in 2008.
Several global, regional and local actions, as well as
agreements or legislative initiatives, have been undertaken in
order to bring the world back on track towards the achieve-
ment of a more sustainable path. Noteworthy progress has
been made by many national governments and international
organizations, who have begun to incorporate sustainable
development into their planning and policies; by pro-active
businesses leaders across the globe having brought sustain-
ability to their products and processes; and finally by local
initiatives that have had success in informing citizens about
the importance of participating in reducing waste, renewing
urban spaces, and other programs.
Among the most significant outcomes of this mounting
wave, we could highlight: the Kyoto Protocol for the reduction
of greenhouse gases (GHGs); the set up of the Agenda 21
initiative; the Millennium Development Goals Program [UN
Millennium Project 2005 (http://www.unmillenniumproject.
org/); the commitment of the international community to the
promotion of renewable energies and energy efficiency to
combat climate change (e.g., EU Climate and Energy Pack-
age), to reduce deforestation, to change the metrics of eco-
nomic growth in order to include social and environmental
aspects (Report of the Commission on the Measurement of
Economic Performance and Social Progress; Orecchini 2007;
Dasgupta 2007), to tackle sustainability related issues in the
manufacturing, buildings, transport and tourism sectors as
well as in urban and city planning.
At the same time, scientific theories and disciplines
related to sustainability have also evolved (Bettencourt and
Kaur 2011). Complex global issues linked to sustainability
have started to be reconsidered in a different variety of
forms, aspects and perspectives, by a number of new ori-
entations of classical scientific disciplines (Kastenhofer
et al. 2011), and through efforts of research communities in
the fields of electrical engineering; computer science;
biotechnology; medicine; earth sciences; environmental
economics, natural resources economics, ecological eco-
nomics, social sciences; and chemical, mechanical and
civil engineering.
Finally, and more recently (Figs. 3,4), the need to face
sustainability related issues by creating a new discipline
that can address complex problems in a transdisciplinary
manner and make use of a network of structured scientific
knowledge, has emerged. This innovative emerging sci-
entific paradigm—sustainability science—has emerged
over the last decade at the center of a diverse set of
research and innovation activities relevant to society’s
efforts to support a transition toward sustainability (Clark
and Dickson 2003).
Today, sustainability science has developed elements of
a shared conceptual framework, sketched a core research
agenda and set of associated methods, and is producing a
steadily growing flow of results. One of the most important
bets, given its problem-oriented structure, is to actively
Fig. 3 Temporal evolution of sustainability science. Reproduced
from Bettencourt and Kaur (2011)
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
involve protagonists of change towards sustainability.
Industry is definitely one of these.
1
Sustainability as a business issue: the driving forces
For businesses, sustainability is becoming a commanding
and essential principle. A sustainable corporation should
create profits for its shareholders while protecting the
environment and improving the lives of those with whom it
interacts; it should operate so that its business interests and
the interests of the environment and society intersect.
Ever since the publication of the Brundtland Report
there have been calls to radically rethink the relationship
between our societies and the environment in general, by
industry and the environment in particular. The need for
such a radical realignment, and for a new industrial revo-
lution, was underscored when the Member States of the
United Nations declared in their Millennium Declaration of
2000 that ‘‘the current unsustainable patterns of production
and consumption must be changed in the interest of our
future welfare and that of our descendants’’, and adopted as
one of the Millennium Development Goals—that of
ensuring environmental sustainability (UNIDO 2003).
Since the 1990s, businesses started adopting sustainabil-
ity principles into their organizations, starting with the
implementation of eco-efficient activities and green inno-
vations (OECD 2009); subsequently, with the adoption of
Corporate Social Responsibility practices and reports as well
with the increasing attention to sustainability related con-
ventional market instruments—dedicated financial indexes
like the Dow Jones Sustainability Indexes (DJSIs)—sus-
tainability become a protagonist of corporate strategies.
The Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index (DJSGI) and
the SAM Sustainability Group created the first collection of
global sustainability indexes in September 1999. The DJSGI
allows benchmarking of the performance of investments in
sustainability companies and funds. It tracks the perfor-
mance of the top ten companies in the Dow Jones global
index that lead the field in sustainability. The criteria by
which the sustainability companies are identified and ranked
are based on three dimensions (economical, environmental,
social) and 12 criteria (SAM and DJSI 2011) as follows:
•Economic: Corporate Governance, Risk&Crisis Man-
agement, Codes of Conduct/Compliance/Corruption &
Bribery and Industry-specific criteria;
•Environment: Environmental reporting, Industry-spe-
cific criteria;
•Social: Human capital development, Talent attraction,
Labor practices indicators, Corporate citizenship and
Fig. 4 The footprint of
sustainability science in terms
of traditional scientific
disciplines. Reproduced from
Bettencourt and Kaur (2011)
1
A more detailed literature review on sustainability science is
provided in the section on industry–academia collaboration below.
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
philanthropy, Social reporting, Industry-specific
criteria.
These criteria facilitate a financial quantification of
sustainability performance by focusing on a company’s
pursuit of sustainability opportunities, and reduction and
avoidance of sustainability risks and costs. Each com-
pany’s sustainability performance is given a score, and the
companies are ranked according to their score. DJSIs have
now contributed actively to the value and the reputation of
industries in the stock market. Currently, more than 70
DJSI licenses are held by asset managers in 19 countries to
manage a variety of financial products including active and
passive funds, certificates and segregated accounts. In total,
these licensees presently manage over 8 billion USD based
on the DJSI.
When thinking about the relationship between industry
and sustainability we may identify some main driving
forces that make sustainability a priority of businesses
agendas:
•Stakeholder judgment, pressure, and choices;
•Environmental effects caused by industry;
•Impact of EHS and labor legislation;
•Growing social divide;
•Securing competitive position;
•Obtaining commercial benefits;
•Potential liabilities;
•Competitive opportunities and threats.
Moreover, an important concept, the ‘‘Triple Bottom
Line—TBL’’ has gained traction among senior managers,
according to which business is sustainable when it lives up
to the TBL of economic prosperity, environmental quality
and social justice. Delivering against the TBL requires of
business a revolution in thinking and acting in no less than
seven dimensions (‘‘thinking in 7D’’): markets, values,
transparency, life-cycle technology, partnerships, time-
perspective and corporate governance (Fig. 5). In the
simplest terms, the TBL agenda focuses corporations not
just on the economic value that they add, but also on the
environmental and social value that they add—or destroy
(Elkington 1997).
In Elkington’s idea, in addition to the classic economic
‘‘bottom line’’ is added another regarding the effect of the
business on social equity and a third regarding its effects
(the balance of positive and negative) on the environment.
Business is seen as a place where business value in the
widest sense is created, and either cared for or destroyed.
The sustainability of a business organization involves
making concrete responses to the call for sustainable
development.
The key role of industry in the transition
towards sustainability
When considering the necessary actions, options, oppor-
tunities and alternatives for a transition towards global,
social and human sustainability, the role and centrality of
industry, both in terms of causes of the crisis and potential
contribution to its solution, must be held as one of the most
important issues to be addressed and tackled.
Indeed, nearly one-third of global energy demand and
almost 40% of worldwide CO
2
emissions are attributable to
industrial activities (IEA 2010a). The bulk of these emis-
sions are related to the large primary materials industries,
such as chemicals and petrochemicals, iron and steel,
cement, pulp and paper, and aluminum.
Although industrial energy efficiency has improved in
recent decades, and CO
2
intensity has declined substan-
tially in many sectors, this progress has been more than
offset, as a consequence of globalization, world population
growth and by rising industrial production worldwide.
As a result, total industrial energy consumption reached
3,015 million tons of oil equivalents (Mtoe) in 2007 (rep-
resenting almost a doubling of energy use since 1971—IEA
2010a).
GHG emissions must peak in the coming decade if the
worse impacts of climate change are to be avoided and
industry, being responsible for *40%, needs to accept this
and respond proactively. If climate change is to be tackled
successfully, industry will need to transform the way it uses
energy and significantly reduce its CO
2
emissions. In order
to keep the world on track towards sustainability and to
make it live within the limits of the planet, a long-term
vision must be developed aimed at including all players,
from consumers to policy makers to producers.
As a matter of fact, over the next 40 years, demand for
industrial materials in most sectors is expected to double or
triple. Projections of future energy use and emissions based
on current technologies show that, without decisive action,
these trends will continue (UNEP 2011).
In addition, according to latest forecasts of the United
Nations (UN 2008), world population is projected to reach
7 billion in late 2011 and to surpass 9 billion by 2050.
Fig. 5 Triple bottom line (TBL) dimensions. Adapted from Elkington
(1997)
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
From a business or industrial perspective, this can be
translated into billions of new consumers, which may offer
room for market expansion and be considered as good
news. However, the bad news is the greater than ever
scarcity of resources, concerns about mounting economic
pressure on the environment, and about potentially wors-
ening conditions for larger parts of humanity, will neces-
sarily influence the ability of those 9 billion to attain or
sustain present consumption lifestyles and the standards of
living enjoyed by the most developed and richest countries.
It is evident that industry plays a crucial role and must
adopt new business strategies that ensure profits, while
respecting the interests and values of both environment and
society.
The World Business Council on Sustainable Develop-
ment (WBCSD 2010), a CEO-led, global association of
some 200 international companies dealing exclusively with
business and sustainable development, originated in the
forum held at the Rio Summit called ‘‘Business Council for
Sustainable Development’’, identified eight main issues:
•Contributing to education enablement and economic
empowerment, particularly of women;
•Developing and promoting radically more eco-efficient
solutions, lifestyles and behavior;
•Taking into account the cost of externalities following
the life-cycle approach;
•Doubling of agricultural output without increasing the
amount of land or water used;
•Halting deforestation and increasing yields from
planted forests;
•Strongly reduce carbon emissions worldwide through a
shift to low-carbon economy;
•Delivering an extensive improvement in the use of
resources and materials;
•Making substantial cuts in industrial CO
2
emissions
requiring the widespread adoption of best available
technologies (BATs) and the promotion of innovation.
In other words, the industrial mindset and its techno-
logical advancements urgently need a transition in the
manner of a new industrial revolution (UNIDO 2003). To
do so effectively, and to accelerate the process, close col-
laboration with scientists and researchers in the academic
world, is not only needed, but represents a win–win solu-
tion for industry and academia, and humanity as a whole
(Elkington 1994).
The case for industrial–academic collaboration: what
industry and academics seek from each other?
The basic functions of universities are to create knowledge
through research, to act as long-term guardians of this
knowledge, to transmit it to others through education, and
to train new researchers. Such work does not necessarily or
immediately give rise to industrial applications or energize
the economy. Provided there is sufficient stability and
strength-in-depth, universities can engage in research that
is outside the scope of companies and provide society with
different skills than would be acquired within industrial
careers. These are fundamental and crucial features of any
developed society.
But of course universities are also expected to (and do)
make direct and indirect contributions to economic per-
formance, and have collaborated with companies for many
years as an integral part of fulfilling their basic functions.
Today, the nature of these collaborations is changing as the
need for effective co-operation becomes more important. In
most recent decades, the nature of such relationships has
become more formal through the formation of explicit
research joint ventures and partnerships and it is generally
accepted, at least in the United States, that research part-
nerships are a critical strategic response to global compe-
tition (Hall et al. 2001). In addition, while universities were
traditionally considered fundamental institutional actors
aimed at fostering economic and social goals, institutions
of higher education are newly deemed as promoters of
innovation (Mowery et al. 2005).
For this reason, several attempts at making universities
effective collaborators of industry players have now been
kicked off successfully, such as in the fields of data col-
lection in Japan (Nakayama et al. 2005) and intellectual
property rights in the United States (Mowery et al. 2005).
Furthermore, laws and policies aimed at promoting uni-
versity–industry collaboration were introduced (Yarime
2009). Moreover, Murmann (2003) showed how the
establishment of networks linking academia, industry, and
the public sector led to differences in educational institu-
tions and patent laws, was a key factor in explaining the
technological leadership of Germany over Britain and the
United States. By examining how collaboration networks
involving academia, industry, and the public sector are
formed, and how technology and institution can co-evolve
leading to environmental innovations, Yarime (2009)
demonstrated benefits in terms of global co-evolution of
technology, institutions and regulation.
Efforts are being made to strengthen this process in
order to more actively develop new applications for
knowledge as it is created, and to better reflect the current
state and needs of industry in the educational curriculum.
By these means, it should also be possible to strengthen the
competitiveness of both universities and industry.
The questions are really how far this process shall be
taken and what the consequences are for the way in which
each of the partners operates. Answering these questions
depends on having an adequate assessment of future needs
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
of both parties involved. Drawing from the literature, Lee’s
(2000) study identified a list of reasons and expectations
believed to be relevant to academics when entering into
collaboration, co-operation or partnership with industry
and vice versa (Table 1).
Reasons for academics collaborating with industry
•To supplement funds for one’s own academic research;
•To test the practical application of one’s own research
and theory;
•To gain insights in the area of one’s own research;
•To further the university’s outreach mission;
•To look for business opportunity;
•To gain knowledge about practical problems useful for
teaching;
•To create student internships and job placement
opportunities;
•To secure funding for research assistants and laboratory
equipment;
•To look for business opportunity.
Reasons for firms collaborating with academics
•To solve specific technical or design problems;
•To develop new products and processes;
•To conduct research leading to new patents To improve
product quality;
•To reorient R&D agenda To have access to new
research via seminars and workshops;
•To maintain an ongoing relationship and network with
the university;
•To conduct ‘‘blue sky’’ research in search of new
technology;
•To conduct fundamental research with no specific
applications in mind;
•To recruit university graduates.
Lee’s study, based on the ‘‘give and take’’ outcomes
between university faculty members and industrial firms
and conducted through ad hoc surveys, provides a hierar-
chy of main respective motivations.
Best practices for industry and academia
collaboration: from outcome to impact
The majority of the literature regarding industry–university
relationships is largely empirical, based on case studies,
quantity of patents generated, bibliometric analyses or
large surveys (Fontana et al. 2006; Abramo et al. 2009).
As a matter of fact, some of the literature highlights the
positive impact of scientific results on the economic sphere
(Beise and Stahl 1999), and documents how many inno-
vations could not be achieved without the important con-
tribution of academics. Another part of the literature
examines the importance of academics, from an industry
point of view, as an external source of information for new
ideas and innovation completion (Fontana et al. 2003).
Furthermore, other contributions focus on the relevance of
the channels used by both players to exchange knowledge
Table 1 Ranking of reasons for
collaboration between industry
and academia (I&A) (source:
adapted from Lee 2000)
Ranking
What firms seek from academics
1 Research on product development
2 Conduct ‘bluesky’ research in search of new technology
3 Solve technical problems
4 Design prototypes
5 Provide seminars and workshops
6 Conduct fundamental research
7 Support universities
8 Develop software
What academics seek from firms
1 Secure funds for graduate assistants and laboratory equipment
2 Gain insight into own research
3 Field-test application of own theory
4 Supplement funds for own research
5 Assist university’s outreach mission
6 Create student jobs and internships
7 Gain knowledge useful for teaching
8 Seek business opportunity
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
(Cohen et al. 2002), making reference to published papers
or reports, public conferences and meetings, and informal
information exchange. Finally, other authors concentrate
on the evaluation of the outcomes of the co-operation itself.
For example, a study by Santoro (2000) indicates the
existence of a positive two-way linkage between the
intensity of industry–university collaboration and the tan-
gible outcomes generated, thus suggesting that higher
levels of industry–university collaboration intensity tend to
produce higher levels of tangible outcomes, while higher
levels of tangible outcomes generated in the past serve to
stimulate higher levels of industry–university collaboration
intensity in the future.
However, from a business perspective, often the research
outcome is not the only essential and important factor.
Managers often view working with academia as beneficial in
terms of how the joint work advances the company toward its
goal, mission and strategy. Therefore, businesses may often
be keener on understanding and assessing the impact that the
co-operated research can have on the firm. This is what the
MIT Sloan Management review study called ‘‘outcome-
impact gap’’, meaning when promising outcomes of uni-
versity projects fail to translate into tangible impact for the
company involved (Pertuze
`et al. 2010).
The study of Pertuze
`et al. (2010) was based on inter-
views with 25 research-intensive multinational companies
(from different sectors, e.g., aerospace, information, tech-
nology, materials, consumer electronics, automotive, etc.),
addressed to the project manager or senior technology
personnel responsible for the collaboration, and referring to
more than 100 university projects sponsored by industry.
The aim of the interview was to assess the project
achievements (i.e., outcome) and subsequent impact on the
company (i.e., impact). The results showed that roughly
half the projects examined resulted in major outcomes (i.e.,
produced new ideas or solutions to problems, developed
new methods of analysis or generated new intellectual
property or potential benefit to the company), but that only
40% of the projects with major research outcomes were
exploited in ways that led to major impact, defined as an
observable and generally agreed-upon positive effect on
the company’s competitiveness or productivity. The other
60% of the projects underachieved, at least from a business
standpoint (i.e., the outcomes did not make their way into
products or processes or influence company decisions).
As a consequence of those results, the study lists seven
key messages and practices for a successful industry–uni-
versity collaboration (Table 2).
Table 2 Best practices for a successful I&A collaboration. Source: adapted from Pertuze
`et al. 2010
1. Define the project’s strategic context as part of the selection process
•Use your company research portfolio to determine collaboration opportunities
•Define specific collaboration outputs that can provide value to the company
•Identify internal users of this output at the working level; executive champions are not a substitute for this requirement
2. Select boundary-spanning project managers with three key attributes
•In-depth knowledge of the technology needs in the field
•The inclination to network across functional and organizational boundaries
•The ability to make connections between research and opportunities for product applications
3. Share with the university team the vision of how the collaboration can help the company
•Select researchers who will understand company practices and technology goals
•Ensure that the university team appreciates the project’s strategic context
4. Invest in long-term relationships
•Plan multiyear collaboration time frames.
•Cultivate relationships with target university researchers, even if research is not directly supported.
5. Establish strong communication linkage with the university team
•Conduct face-to-face meetings on a regular basis
•Develop an overall communication routine to supplement the meetings
•Encourage extended personnel exchange, both company to university and university to company
6. Build broad awareness of the project within the company
•Promote university team interactions with different functional areas within the company
•Promote feedback to the university team on project alignment with company needs
7. Support the work internally both during the contract and after, until the research can be exploited
•Provide appropriate internal support for technical and management oversight
•Include accountability for company uptake of research results as part of the project manager role
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
Industry and academia collaborations
within the framework of International Conferences
on Sustainability Science
Current state of knowledge on sustainability science
Sustainable use of landscape and natural resources, miti-
gation and adaptation strategies for climate change affected
regions, or precautionary governance of emerging tech-
nologies are complex sustainability challenges that have
driven the evolvement of a new scientific paradigm, i.e.,
sustainability science, over the last decade (Kates et al.
2001; Clark and Dickson 2003; Swart et al. 2004;
Komiyama and Takeuchi 2006; Turner and Robbins 2008).
Thereby, sustainability science is inspired by concepts of
‘post-normal’ and ‘mode 2’ science (Funtowicz and Ravetz
1993; Gibbons et al. 1994) and employs corresponding
research paradigms such as participatory, interactive,
transdisciplinary, transacademic, collaborative, and com-
munity-based research approaches (Kasemir et al. 2003;
Ba
¨ckstrand 2003). All such approaches have in common
that they endorse research collaborations among scientists
and non-academic stakeholders from business, govern-
ment, and civil society in order to address issues of sus-
tainability. This evolution can be understood as a response
to two developments that led to the proposal of a ‘new
social contract for science’ (Lubchenco 1998; Gibbons
1999): First, the asserted claim that science ought to
address and ‘‘solve’’ demanding societal problems, a claim
that is renewed in the context of the global environmental
change debate (Liu et al. 2007, p. 646); and second, the
indication that traditional disciplinary and interdisciplinary
approaches as well as applied and consultative (‘extrac-
tive’) approaches with restricted stakeholder engagement
tend to fail in coping with sustainability challenges (Gib-
bons 1999; Van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006).
Epistemological studies were initially pursued to
establish a functional typology of knowledge differentiat-
ing and linking (1) analytical (explanatory, systemic, sys-
tem) knowledge; (2) anticipatory knowledge; (3) normative
(orientation-guiding, goal, target) knowledge; and (4)
action-guiding (transformation) knowledge (Burger and
Kamber 2003; Grunwald 2004,2007; Wiek 2007). More
recent studies have focused on the ‘uncommon’ knowledge
types, namely, normative knowledge (Schultz et al. 2008)
and strategic knowledge (Loorbach and Rotmans 2010).
Methodological studies initially developed frameworks
of how to link ‘‘knowledge to action’’ in sustainability
research (Ravetz 2000; Scholz et al. 2006; Robinson 2008)
and later focused on particular methods in sustainability
science, such as scenario analysis (Swart et al. 2004;
Guimara
˜es Pereira et al. 2007) and sustainability assess-
ments (Gibson 2006; Ness et al. 2007). Recent studies have
explored the methodology of post-normal science in sus-
tainability science (Farrell 2008), and suggested new
methodological approaches to problem structuring (Ness
et al. 2010).
The aim of this paper is not to conduct an in-depth
review of current existing literature on sustainability sci-
ence, but rather to review the latest key scientific mile-
stones currently driving the creation of this new science, in
order to contextualize research outcomes in the wider
sustainability science paradigm.
In our view, and as stressed by Clark and Dickson
(2003), ‘‘the research community needs to complement its
historic role in identifying problems of sustainability with a
greater willingness to join with the development and other
communities to work on practical solutions to those prob-
lems’’. Similarly, Van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2006) argued
that sustainability scientists must engage with a broad
range of stakeholders to develop joint and coordinated
strategies for how to solve sustainability problems.
In this regard, we believe that industry, governments
and, above all, academia need to work together to research,
develop, demonstrate and deploy promising new technol-
ogies, to find and advance novel processes that will allow
for the CO
2
-free production of common industrial materials
in the longer term, to preserve as well improve on the
sustainability of global, social and human systems, and,
finally, to set up a comprehensive policy framework for
addressing such complex problems.
Those principles form the basis of, and constitute the
pillars upon which a part of the sustainability science
research community [the Integrated Research System for
Sustainability Science (IR3S) of the University of Tokyo,
the Interuniversity Research Centre for Sustainable
Development (CIRPS) Sapienza University of Rome, the
United Nations University (UNU), and the Arizona State
University (ASU)] decided to start an institutionalizing
process of industry–academia collaboration within the
framework of sustainability science.
Starting from the co-production of knowledge and
the learning-through-doing and doing-through-learning
approach, the collaboration process within the framework
of the innovative scientific paradigm has been initiated and
shared with industry representatives through ad-hoc meet-
ings and conferences. The main objective is to achieve a
virtuous cycle supported by the three main innovative
characteristics of sustainability science itself that firstly
address complexity with a trans-disciplinary approach;
secondly, is problem-driven and use both scientific and
local knowledge to resolve contextualized problems; and
thirdly, promotes the active involvement of the different
stakeholders (Van Kerkhoff and Lebel (2006))—civil
society, the private sector and policy makers—in a process
of scientific co-production.
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
Evolution of the ICSS industry–academia collaboration
The first step in the Industry–Academia collaboration
within the framework of sustainability science was the
panel discussion on ‘‘Sustainability Science for Industry’’
held during the International Conference on Sustainability
Science (ICSS 2009: International Conference on Sus-
tainability Science 2009, convened by the University of
Tokyo’s IR3S, 5–7 February 2009). Representatives of
Toyota Motor Company, Japan Airlines, and Showa Shell
Sekiyu KK, met academics to speak about sustainability
science, with the aim of exchanging views on creating
partnerships between industry and academia. The industry
representatives described their experience in collaboration
with universities, their activities related to sustainable
development and how their companies have taken steps to
incorporate it in their business models. A fruitful and broad
discussion took place, and some key points on how to build
an effective industry–academia partnership were laid down
(Kauffman 2009): (1) the necessity of defining what
industry both can and cannot do; (2) the necessity for
symbolic work that defines sustainability science in the
context of contemporary challenges to galvanize all play-
ers; (3) the importance of universities and industries
working together to define sustainability science from the
outset; (4) to focus on industry–university collaboration
towards specific sustainability targets (e.g., alternative
fuels, deployment of new technologies); (5) the necessity to
ensure the relevance and effectiveness of the results of
sustainability science; (6) the need to develop concrete
cases demonstrating moving knowledge to action.
The second step was on the occasion of the Second ICSS
(http://icss2010.net/?p=home) held in Rome, during which
the panel discussion ‘‘Industry and Academia for a transi-
tion towards sustainability’’ was held with the aim of ini-
tiating close collaborations with big international business
players, and to stress test sustainability science principles
directly with industrial protagonists. The partners on this
occasion were ENEL, FIAT, Unicredit and Sapio. Inter-
actions took place before and after the conference, with the
aim of structuring the Industry and Academia Collabora-
tion (IAC) process and to introduce all players to the new
scientific paradigm of sustainability science.
The central idea behind the Panel was to pursue a fully
cooperative way of working, by ensuring the involvement
of all participants in the process of structuring the collab-
oration and in defining the contents to be discussed. Dif-
ferent perspectives, aimed mainly at clarifying what
sustainability means from a business perspective, identi-
fying ‘what industry asks and offers’ to sustainability sci-
ence, were explored. To do so, academic researchers
provided a background documentation that served as a first
input to participants (the Guidelines and a Working Points
Concept Paper). Documents were later revised and dis-
cussed by panelists and academics, with the aim of editing
and producing a shared version of a Concept Paper. A
synthetic description of the ‘modus operandi’ adopted for
the Panel organization is shown in Fig. 6.
The concept paper was aimed at outlining the central
themes of the Panel discussion, at ensuring a structured and
productive discussion. By serving as the main base for dis-
cussion, the paper contained five main working points to be
considered as a first step towards an enduring collaboration.
We provide here a synthesis of the main discussion
points:
(1) How to enhance industry–academia collaboration.
Because industry and academic collaboration takes
place in different ways, a fully cooperative way of
working was chosen, where the protagonists of this
challenge sit at the same table and to work at seeking
to reduce the distance and to fill the gap between the
requirements of industry and academia. To this end,
the proposal for a ‘closed cycle collaboration pro-
cess’ emerged
2
(Fig. 7).
(2) Industry Strategy for Sustainable Business. Panelists
stressed how sustainable product development has
became crucial for the business sector and corporate
investment strategies. More generally, panellists dis-
cussed the good practices of industry participants,
explaining how sustainability has entered into the
corporate decision making process, and in which way
sustainability may contribute to a successful business
model.
(3) How to measure sustainability and sustainable busi-
ness: beyond conventional economic indicators. Pan-
elists agreed on the fact that indicators perform many
functions, from leading to better decisions and more
effective actions available to policy makers, to
helping to measure and calibrate progress towards
sustainability. In addition, it was highlighted that
information obtained through sustainability indicators
is starting to be crucial to industry planning in order
to anticipate future strategies and challenges.
(4) Deployment of new technologies: effective policies to
promote sustainable business. The introduction of
sustainable business practices often requires innova-
tion and the development of new technologies. The
latter necessitates an appropriate policy framework to
facilitate and accelerate access to markets. The role of
policies in fostering the sustainability of business
2
In the closed cycle collaboration process, industry identifies
problems, asks academia to analyze and to find solutions for them,
evaluates their feasibility from a corporate perspective, keeping in
mind the establishment of good practice with joint solutions that are
beneficial for society as a whole.
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
activities has been recognized as crucial and
determinant. Sustainability scientists and industry
representatives discussed how to identify ‘best sus-
tainability-oriented policy practices’, sending a strong
message to policymakers and working together to
achieve sustainable business models.
(5) Industry and Sustainability: reaching a shared defi-
nition of sustainability science. Panelists converged
on the idea that sustainability science can help
understand the links between social, technological,
economical and political dimensions. Moreover, it
can create methods and visions with which to analyze
policies and support tools for sustainability, to assess
its trade-offs. Researchers consider the role of
industry in pursuing sustainable economic patterns,
to create well being, and to reduce the environmental
impact of that economic activity, to be fundamental.
Many business representatives expressed the need to
better clarify the practical concept behind the theories
in order to incorporate these principles into their
strategies.
After ICSS 2010, a new feeling of maturity was estab-
lished, along with the necessity of establishing an interna-
tional sustainability science network that would orient its
research activities within the framework of the new science,
and that includes the excellence of industrial partners
involved in the IAC process. The collaboration benefited
from an improvement in network structuring, and from an
expansion both of the players involved and of its geograph-
ical coverage. In this international context, the first meeting
aimed at establishing structure and operational modalities
took place on 5 October 2010 at UN Headquarters in New
York. At the workshop ‘A Roadmap for Industry–Academia
Collaboration Towards Sustainability’, three international
industrial realities had the chance to shape the future and
course of action of the I&A collaboration.
The workshop involved three universities and three
companies, coming from Asia, Europe and America,
respectively: Showa Shell Sekiyu KK, ENEL, and the
Lighting Science Group. The first part of the event took the
form of a brief presentation by the companies, while
the second part focused on how continue the collaboration
process at a global level within the International Network
for Sustainability Science.
Fig. 6 International
Conference on Sustainability
Science (ICSS) 2010
collaboration flowchart
Fig. 7 The closed cycle collaboration process
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
Five main important points required to develop and to
improve the I&A collaboration were agreed:
1. To create a common platform to plan next steps;
2. New approaches for involving more stakeholders;
3. To share a Paper of wills with industries, a sort of
Declaration of intent.
4. Sharing a Roadmap summarizing main outcome of
Rome’s Panel, identifying and obtaining formal sup-
port from key industries from different continents, and
selecting key topics to be discussed in future
workshops.
5. Setting up of ad-hoc working groups on specific topics.
Relevance of the sustainability science paradigm
to the institutionalization of the collaboration: why
a new science makes the difference
Having presented the evolution of the collaboration pro-
cess within ICSS and the sustainability science paradigm,
we will now briefly depict (1) the difference of the role of
IAC in sustainability science compared with its role in
other disciplines of science; (2) the higher barriers faced in
the context of sustainability science and ICSS than in other
contexts as well as the different role of universities; (3) the
difference between the outcomes expected and the obsta-
cles incurred.
Collaborations within the sustainability science
paradigm: main implications and differences
It should be stressed that, in contrast to ‘conventional’
collaborations occurring among industry and university,
the goal of co-operation in sustainability science is not just
the framing of a joint specific research program relating to
a product, strategy, regulation or standard, but rather a
setting up a new way of working together under a scientific
paradigm capable of embracing a wide spectrum of envi-
ronmental, economic but above all societal values regard-
ing sustainability.
More specifically, instead of trying to solve a precise
technical problem (e.g., develop an environmentally
friendly technology; reduce the impact of a business
product on the environment or on society; design a precise
tool), collaboration within sustainability science is aimed at
revolutionizing the concept of scientific production with a
vision of a new scheme where complex sustainability
related problems faced by the entire business community
and of relevance to human, global and social systems must
find shared and cooperative solutions. ‘‘Shared’’ here
implies a broad recognition by a growing group of people
from different backgrounds who, in a steadily extending
network, are active in the area of sustainability science.
Therefore, the central elements of such a collaboration
imply inter-, intra- and trans-disciplinary research, co-
production of knowledge, co-evolution of complex systems
and their environment, learning through doing and doing
through learning, and finally system innovation instead of
system optimization. More simply stated, this new
approach can be represented as co-evolution, co-production
and co-learning. The theory shall be employed as an
umbrella under which to bring together the various dif-
ferent parts of the sustainability puzzle required to call for
integrated assessment methods to analyze problems and,
above all, find concrete solutions.
Sustainability science differs from others disciplines in
its systemic nature; indeed many complex issues are con-
nected, interdependent (i.e., climate change and biodiver-
sity) and require systemic understanding and interventions;
because of its longer-term time framework (i.e., impacts
and influence in the future; dynamic process of change;
inter and intra generational equity); but above all because
of its action-oriented characteristics, aimed at implement-
ing knowledge into actions to address pressing sustain-
ability challenges faced by our societies. Some of the grand
challenges for global sustainability concern the improve-
ment of forecasts, the integration of observations, the
management of disruptive change, the determination of
institutional change, the encouragement of innovation and
a better integration of social science research to progress
our understanding and address global sustainability (Reid
et al. 2010).
To better describe these differences, we may recall a few
examples of sustainability innovation contextualized in the
so-called ‘‘social process of knowledge transformation’’
(Yarime 2010), where sustainability science was conceived
in order to analyze the social process of production, dif-
fusion and utilization of various types of knowledge with
the long-term consequences to society, to study the
dynamic mechanisms with feedback from different players,
and to identify gaps and inconsistencies (i.e., quantity,
quality, speed of processing knowledge) in the various
phases of knowledge production, diffusion and utilization
by different players. Here, sustainability innovation is
considered and studied as a dynamic process of knowledge
transformation through the interaction of different actors in
society. Such innovation aims to identify the types of
knowledge, players with different norms and incentives
(i.e., universities; firms, consumers; public organizations;
etc.) the mechanism of knowledge transformation (i.e.,
transfer, elaboration, combination, application, interpreta-
tion), and finally efficiency and resilience (diversity and
connectivity) in knowledge transformation for sustainabil-
ity. Such a perspective moves from the concept that,
especially in the era of the knowledge-based societies and
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
economies, the rapid creation and easy access to knowl-
edge are the key determinants of innovation (Foray 2004).
As a consequence, with knowledge regarding sustainability
being spread widely, no single player can be on top of all
the various issues or topics (Powell and Grodal 2005). For
this reason, any collaboration assumes a relevant role in
fostering sustainability innovation.
The first example concerns the implications of IAC in
the case of photocatalysts in Japan, where the formation of
networks for new applications of photocatalysts for envi-
ronmental protection, fostered by advanced scientific
knowledge and an effective network comprising firms,
researchers and public entities, led to the realization of
diverse applications fruitful for both economic but espe-
cially social needs. As a matter of fact, in this case uni-
versities acted as a hub of networks of science and
technology, where firms worked closely with academic
researchers to develop and commercialize products, bene-
fiting from successful cases of applying new materials in
fields where collaborative undertakings had prior knowl-
edge of consumer needs and where the public sector
worked as a bridge in developing environmentally friendly
technologies (Baba et al. 2010). Here, scientific research
and product development were integrated through univer-
sity–industry collaboration and led to a successful inno-
vation in a way particularly appropriate to the advanced
materials sector and social needs.
The second example regards the development of
photovoltaics (PV) in Japan, which illustrates a significant
transition in the knowledge system from one based on
research and development (R&D) projects, supported by
the public sector for basic scientific knowledge, to another
based on investments in production facilities by private
funds for societal diffusion. Indeed, Japanese R&D projects
on PV were, since the mid 1980s, through a consortium of
universities and companies, funded by New Energy
Development Organization (NEDO), leading initially to a
gradual and solid accumulation and sharing of technolog-
ical knowledge, and more recently to an explosion of
investment in PV through start-up companies funded by
venture capitals and private funds in United States, Europe,
and China, contributing to making such a technology a
valid option for changing the energy paradigm towards a
low carbon one. However, Yarime underlines how inno-
vation systems through university–industry collaboration
that functioned relatively well in the past in Japan for
scientific and technical knowledge might not work so well
for financial knowledge (Yarime 2010).
3
The final example is related to the ‘‘Eco
2
Cities: Eco-
logical Cities as Economic Cities’’, a new initiative laun-
ched by the World Bank in response to the challenge to
make impact on the trajectory of urbanization a defining
feature of the twenty-first century (Suzuki et al. 2009). The
objective of Eco
2
Cities is to help cities in developing
countries achieve greater ecological and economic sus-
tainability. The program aims to help cities in developing
countries achieve greater ecological and economic sus-
tainability. The program will provide practical and scal-
able, analytical and operational support to cities, but also
aims to build global partnerships among forward-looking
cities in developing countries, global best-practice cities,
academia, and international development communities.
Four key interrelated and mutually supportive principles
define the Eco
2
City program:
•A city-based approach that enables local governments
to lead a development process that takes into account
their specific circumstances, including local ecology;
•An expanded platform for collaborative design and
decision making that accomplishes sustained synergy
by coordinating and aligning the actions of key
stakeholders;
•A one-system approach that enables cities to realize the
benefits of integration by planning, designing, and
managing the whole urban system; and
•An investment framework that values sustainability and
resiliency by incorporating and accounting for life
cycle analysis, the value of all capital assets (manu-
factured, natural, human, and social), and a broader
scope of risk assessments in decision making.
Higher barriers and different roles for universities
The high level objective of co-operation within ICSS and
sustainability science in general, forces the protagonists to
confront each other with different perspectives, priorities
and backgrounds that often make it more difficult to
achieve concrete and tangible immediate results. In order
to realize the high level of expectation, a new research and
collaborative process paradigm is needed that is better able
to reflect the complexity and the multidimensional char-
acter of sustainability. The new paradigm must be able to
encompass different magnitudes of scales (of time, space
and function), multiple balances (dynamics), multiple
players (interests) and multiple failures (systemic faults). It
must be adequately managed through organized participa-
tory processes in which different kinds of knowledge—not
only scientific knowledge—come into play.
However, even more important is the changing role of
universities, which should move from research universities
to adopting a more entrepreneurial stance (Etzkowitz
3
During the ICSS ‘A Roadmap for Industry–academia Collaboration
Towards Sustainability’ workshop held in New York in October 2010,
the case of photovoltaic development within the context of IAC and
Sustainability Science was debated.
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
2003). The entrepreneurial university has the ability to
generate a focused strategic direction (Clark 1998), both in
formulating academic goals and in translating knowledge
produced within the university into economic and social
utility. Etzkowitz proposes a synthetic explanation of the
different role that a university should play in becoming
closer to a quasi-firm (Table 3).
On top of the more business-oriented approach to uni-
versities, academic institutions, focusing on collaborating
with industries in the transition towards sustainability and to
more societal useful output, should act not only as a facil-
itator but more specifically as a main platform for knowl-
edge creation, transfer and institutionalization. Academia
shall preserve its function of research and knowledge
building but also increase direct confrontation with industry
and society to identify the main sustainability issues to be
addressed, and work towards viable solutions. Moreover,
academia should establish and coordinate networks, and
networks of networks, that may arise progressively in order
to optimize research effort and benefit from the sharing of
previous experience of knowledge and of business appli-
cations. Finally, in order to include all the relevant per-
spectives of society, a university should be increasingly
able to involve citizens and consumers who, after all, rep-
resent the final customers of any business solution.
Expected outcomes and incurred obstacles
Finally, coming to the third point, academia was critically
important in confronting industry directly in order to
understand in depth undertakings concerning sustainability
from a business point of view, and how companies can
contribute to the institutionalization of sustainability sci-
ence. Certainly, the advantages for academia are many-
fold, ranging from economic (funds for own research,
internships or seminars, etc.) to academic (gaining
knowledge useful for further improving research frame-
works and teaching) to theoretical ones (increasing
knowledge of the daily business of industry and long-term
strategies). Simultaneously, academia faces strong diffi-
culties in collaborating with industry, particularly in mak-
ing clear to businesses the concept and definition of
sustainability science, involving firms in a stable manner,
or lastly serving as facilitators or coordinators of different
geographical and sectoral landscapes. As an example, the
establishment and structuring of permanent communica-
tions flows inside companies or of developing a common
and shared vocabulary for transdisciplinary sustainability-
related issues, adaptable to the changes of company politics
and requirements, was a strong barrier that had to be faced
with common agreed principles and next steps.
On the other hand, according to industry, most of the
advantages of collaborating with academia concern aug-
mented knowledge of new science, displaying the benefits
arising from the latest research outcomes, the possibility
of participating in and contributing to the growing sus-
tainability science network, and expanding the view of the
sustainability issue with other, often rival, business play-
ers. However, regarding the concrete difficulties faced by
industry, the biggest was the different priorities, often in
terms of timing, compared with the objectives of acade-
mia, as well as complications related to the structuring of
the collaboration process rather than building ad-hoc
projects.
To sum up, the ICSS conferences and workshops have
been an arena where not only different stakeholders have
met but also where researchers from different disciplines
co-operated across their own scientific backgrounds and
perspectives, in a trans-disciplinary way. However, it is
worth noting that, while the ambition was to shift from a
collaboration to an international institutionalized working
group (as represented in Fig. 8), several barriers have been
faced that have delaying the core objective of the ambitious
initial program. A consolidated list of the core issues faced
is summarized here:
•Finding the right contact person inside the company:
•Working in a participatory way;
•Structuring permanent communications flow;
•Adapting to the changes of company politics and
requirements;
•Developing a common vocabulary for transdisciplinary
sustainability-related issues;
•Focusing on a framework to structure the collaboration
rather than aiming at building single ad-hoc projects;
•Developing a comprehensive strategy for such collab-
oration when dealing with diverse business sectors.
Table 3 Expansion of university mission. Source: Etzkowitz 2003
Teaching Research Entrepreneurial
Preservation and dissemination of knowledge First academic revolution Second academic revolution
New missions generate conflict of interest controversies Two missions: teaching and research Third mission: economic and social
development; old mission continued
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
Conclusion: recommendations and guidelines
for making university-industry collaborations work
within a sustainability science paradigm
In this paper, we highlight the current crisis in sustain-
ability, and the centrality of industry–academia collabora-
tion in the transition towards sustainability, by both
recalling the scientific frameworks and the pragmatic
experience gained from the set up of concrete processes
both within and outside the sustainability science scientific
framework.
To conclude, we deem it very important to highlight
some key universal and general concepts that are necessary
to achieve a profitable and successful collaboration within
the framework of sustainability science. Such principles
could be considered as guidelines for further improvement
and advancements in structuring industry–academia col-
laboration within sustainability science:
1. Structuring conceptual and pragmatic scientific meth-
ods for knowledge exchanges between industry and
academia;
2. Adopting a long-term perspective of collaboration,
looking ahead to a multi-year perspective with clear
involvement from business;
3. Establishing strong communication linkages with uni-
versity teams and business representatives (visits of
researchers to companies or conference calls);
4. Increasing awareness of the project within the firms
involved, aimed at engaging professionals from dif-
ferent functional areas;
5. Strongly assessment and concentration on the impact
of the collaboration to the firm strategy and mission;
6. Call for a shift in the role of universities and academia,
shifting towards more entrepreneurial behavior.
References
Abramo G, D’Angelo CA, Di Costa F, Solazzi M (2009) University–
industry collaboration in Italy: a bibliometric examination.
Technovation 29(6–7):498–507
Baba Y, Masaru Y, Naohiro S (2010) Sources of success in advanced
materials innovation: the role of ‘core researchers’ in university–
industry collaboration in Japan. Int J Innov Manag 14(2):
201–219
Ba
¨ckstrand K (2003) Civic science for sustainability: reframing the
role of experts, policy-makers and citizens in environmental
governance. Glob Environ Politics 3(4):24–41
Beise M, Stahl H (1999) Public research and industrial innovation in
Germany. Res Policy 28:397–422
Fig. 8 Evolution of I&A
collaboration
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
Bettencourt L, Kaur J (2011) Evolution and structure of sustainability
science. PNAS 108(49):19540–19545, doi:10.1073/pnas.11027
12108
Burger P, Kamber R (2003) Cognitive integration in transdisciplinary
science: knowledge as a key notion. Issues Integr Stud 21:43–73
Clark B (1998) Creating entrepreneurial Universities: organizational
pathways of transformation. Pergamon Press, New York
Clark WC, Dickson NM (2003) Sustainability science: the emerging
research program. PNAS 100(14):8059–8061
Cohen WM, Nelson RR, Walsh J (2002) Links and impacts: the
influence of public research on industrial R&D. Manag Sci
48:1–23
Dasgupta P (2007) The idea of sustainable development. Sustain Sci
2:5–11
Elkington J (1994) Towards the sustainable corporation: win–win–
win business strategies for sustainable development. Calif
Manag Rev 36(2):90–100
Elkington J (1997) Cannibals with forks: the triple bottom line of 21st
century business. Capstone, Oxford
Etzkowitz H (2003) Research groups as ‘quasi-firms’: the invention of
the entrepreneurial university. Res Policy 32(1):109–121
Ewing B, Moore D, Goldfinger S, Oursler A, Reed A, Wackernagel M
(2010) The ecological footprint atlas 2010. Global Footprint
Network, Oakland
Farrell KN (2008) The politics of science and sustainable develop-
ment: Marcuse’s new science in the 21st century. Capital Nat
Soc 19:68–83
Fontana R, Geuna A, Matt M (2003) Firm size and openness: the
driving forces of university–industry collaboration. In: SPRU
Electronic Working Paper, SEWP 103. University of Sussex,
Brighton, UK
Fontana R, Geuna A, Matt M (2006) Factors affecting university–
industry R&D projects: the importance of searching, screening
and signalling. Res Policy 35(2):309–323
Foray D (2004) The economics of knowledge. MIT Press, Cambridge
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age.
Futures 25:735–755
Gibbons M (1999) Science’s new social with society. Nature
402:C81–C84
Gibbons M, Limoges C, Nowotny H, Schwartzman S, Scott P, Trow
M, (1994) The new production of knowledge. The dynamics of
science and research in contemporary societies. Sage, London
Gibson RB (2006) Sustainability assessment: basic components of a
practical approach. Impact Assess Proj Apprais 24:170–182
Grunwald A (2004) Strategic knowledge for sustainable development:
the need for reflexivity and learning at the interface between
science and society. Int J Foresight Innov Policy 1:150–167
Grunwald A (2007) Working towards sustainable development in the
face of uncertainty and incomplete knowledge. J Environ Policy
Plann 9:245–262
Guimara
˜es Pereira A, von Schomberg R, Funtowicz S (2007)
Foresight knowledge assessment. Int J Foresight Innov Policy
3:53–75
Hall BH, Link AN, Scott JT (2001) Barriers inhibiting industry from
partnering with universities: evidence from the Advanced
Technology Program. J Technol Transfer 26:87–98
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007) Summary
for policymakers. Climate Change 2007: mitigation. In: Metz B,
Davidson OR, Bosch PR, Dave R, Meyer LA (eds) Contribution
of Working Group III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010a) Energy Technology
perspective 2010. OECD/IEA, Paris
International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010b) WEO-2010 ‘‘Energy
Poverty: How to make modern energy access universal’’.
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2010/weo2010_
poverty.pdf
International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) et al
(1980) World conservation strategy: living resource conservation
for sustainable development. IUCN-UNEP-WWF. Gland,
Switzerland
Jerneck A, Olsson L, Ness B, Anderberg S, Baier M, Clark E, Hickler
T, Hornborg A, Kronsell A, Lo
¨vbrand E, Persson J (2010)
Structuring sustainability science. Sustain Sci 6:69–82, doi:
10.1007/s11625-010-0117-x
Kasemir B, Jager J, Jaeger CC, Gardner MT (2003) Public
participation in sustainability science—a handbook. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge
Kastenhofer K, Bechtold U, Wilfing H (2011) Sustaining sustainabil-
ity science: the role of established inter-disciplines. Ecol Econ
70(2011):835–843
Kates R et al (2001) Sustainability science. Science 292(5517):
641–642
Kates R, Parris TM, Leiserowitz AA (2005) What is sustainable
development? Environment 47(3):9–21. http://www.environ
mentmagazine.org/Editorials/Kates-apr05-full.html
Kauffman J (2009) Advancing sustainability science: report on the
international conference on sustainability science (ICSS) 2009.
Sustain Sci 4:233–242
Komiyama H, Takeuchi K (2006) Sustainability science: building a
new discipline. Sustain Sci 1:1–6
Lee (2000) The sustainability of university-industry research collab-
oration: an empirical assessment 1. J Technol Transf 25:111–133
Liu J, Dietz T, Carpenter SR, Folke C, Alberti M et al (2007) Coupled
human and natural systems. AMBIO J Hum Environ 36:639–649
Loorbach D, Rotmans J (2010) The practice of transition manage-
ment: examples and lessons from four distinct cases.
Futures42:237–246
Lubchenco J (1998) Entering the century of the environment: a new
social contract for science. Science 279:491–497
Maddison A (2006) The world economy, vol 1: a millennial perspec-
tive, vol 2: historical statistics. Development Centre studies,
OECD Publishing, Paris. doi:10.1787/9789264022621-en
Meadows Donella H, Randers J, Meadows DL (2004) Limits to growth:
the 30-year update. Chelsea Green, White River Junction
Mowery DC, Sampat BN (2005) Universities in national innovation
systems. In: Fagerberg J, MoweryDC, Nelson RR (eds) The Oxford
handbook of innovation. Oxford University Press, New York
Murmann JP (2003) Knowledge and competitive advantage: the
coevolution of firms, technology and national institutions.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
Nakayama Y, Hosono M, Fukugawa N, Kondo M (2005) University-
Industry Cooperation: Joint Research and Contract Resear-
ch.‘‘Research Report 119. Second Theory-Oriented Research
Group, National Instituteof Science and Technology Policy
(NISTEP), in cooperation with the Office of Technology
Transfer Promotion, Research Environment and Industrial Co-
operationDivision, Research Promotion Bureau, Ministry of
Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT).
November
Ness B, Urbel-Piirsalua E, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2007) Categoris-
ing tools for sustainability assessment. Ecol Econ 60:498–508
Ness B, Anderberg S, Olsson L (2010) Structuring problems in
sustainability science: the multilevel DPSIR framework. Geofo-
rum 41:479–488
OECD (2009) Eco-innovation in industry. Enabling Green Growth.
OECD, Paris
Orecchini F (2007) A measurable definition of sustainable develop-
ment based on closed cycles of resources and its application to
energy systems. Sustain Sci 2:245
Pertuze
´JA, Calder ES, Greitzer EM, Lucas WA (2010) Best practices
for industry–university collaboration. MIT Sloan Manag Rev
51(4):83–90
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
Powell WW, Grodal S (2005) Networks of innovators. The Oxford
Handbook of Innovation, Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ravetz J (2000) Integrated assessment for sustainability appraisal in
cities and regions. Environ Impact Assess Rev 20:31–64
Reid WV, Mooney HA, Cropper A, Capistrano D, Carpenter SR,
Chopra K, Dasgupta P, Dietz T, Duraiappah AK, Hassan R,
Kasperson R, Leemans R, May TRM, McMichael AJ, Pingali P,
Samper C, Scholes R, Watson RT, Zakri AH, Shidong Z, Ash
NJ, Bennett E, Kumar P, Lee MJ, Raudsepp-Hearne C, Simons
H, Thonell J, Zurek M (2005) The millennium ecosystem
assessment: ecosystems and human well being: synthesis. World
Resources Institute, Washington, DC
Reid WV et al (2010) Earth system science for global sustainability:
grand challenges. Science 330:916
Robinson J (2008) Being undisciplined—transgressions and intersec-
tions in academia and beyond. Futures 40:70–86
SAM, DJSI (2011) Dow Jones sustainability world indexes guide
book version 11.6, 7 September 2011
Santoro MD (2000) Success breeds success: the linkage between
relationship intensity and tangible outcomes in industry–univer-
sity collaborative ventures. J High Technol Manag Res
11(2):255–273
Scholz RW, Lang D, Wiek A, Walter A, Stauffacher M (2006)
Transdisciplinary case studies as a means of sustainability
learning: historical framework and theory. Int J Sustain High
Educ 7:226–251
Schultz J, Brand FS, Kopfmueller J, Ott K (2008) Building a ‘Theory
of Sustainable Development’: twosalient conceptions within the
German discourse. Int J Environ Sustain Dev 7: 226–251
Stern N (2006) The economics of climate change—the Stern review.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Suzuki H, Dastur A, Moffatt S, Yabuki N, World Bank (2009) Eco
2
Cities. Ecological cities as economic cities. World Bank,
Australian Agency for International Development (AusAid),
Australia
Swart RJ, Raskin P, Robinson J (2004) The problem of the future—
sustainability science and scenario analysis. Glob Environ
Change 14:137–146
Turner BL II, Robbins P (2008) Land-change science and political
ecology: similarities, differences, and implications for sustain-
ability science. Annu Rev Environ Resour 33:295–316
UNEP (2009) Global green new deal policy brief. http://www.
unep.org/pdf/A_Global_Green_New_Deal_Policy_Brief.pdf
UNEP (2010a) Global green new deal: an update for the G20
Pittsburgh summit. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/Link
Click.aspx?fileticket=ciH9RD7XHwc%3d&tabid=1394&language=
en-US
UNEP (2010b) UNEP 2010 ‘‘Rethinking the economic recovery: a
global green new deal’’. http://www.unep.org/greeneconomy/
docs/GGND-Report-April2009.pdf
UNEP (2011) Towards a green economy: pathways to sustainable
development and poverty eradication. http://www.unep.org/
greeneconomy/GreenEconomyReport/tabid/29846/Default.aspx
UNIDO (2003) The role of industrial development in the achievement
of the millennium development goals. In: Proceedings of the
Industrial Development Forum and Associated Round Tables
Vienna, 1–3 Dec 2003, Compendium Edition. http://www.
unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/Publications/Pub_free/The_role_
of_industrial_development_in_achievement_of_MDGs.pdf
United Nations (2008) Population Division, World Population
Prospects: the 2008 revision. UN, New York
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2007) Human
development report 2007/2008. Fighting climate change: human
solidarity in a divided world. United Nations Development
Program, New York
United Nations Development Program (UNDP) (2009) Human
development report 2009. Overcoming barriers: human mobility
and development. United Nations Development Program, New
York
United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2007) Global
environmental outlook 4. United Nations Environment Pro-
gramme, Nairobi
Van Kerkhoff L, Lebel L (2006) Linking knowledge and action for
sustainable development. Annu Rev Environ Resour 31:445–477
Wiek A (2007) Challenges of transdisciplinary research as interactive
knowledge generation—experiencesfrom transdisciplinary case
study research. GAIA—Ecol Perspect Sci Soc 16:52–57
World Bank (2007) World development report 2008: agriculture for
development. World Bank, Washington, DC
World Bank (2009) World Development report 2010: development in
a changing climate. World Bank, Washington, DC
World Business Council for Sustainable Development (2010) Vision
2050: the new agenda for businesses. http://www.wbcsd.org/
web/projects/BZrole/Vision2050-FullReport_Final.pdf
World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED)
(1987) Our common future. Oxford University Press, Oxford
World Health Organisation (WHO) (2010) UN-water global annual
assessment of sanitation and drinking-water (GLAAS). http://
www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/glaas/en/
Yarime M (2009) Eco-innovation through university–industry col-
laboration: co-evolution of technology and institution for the
development of lead-free solders. In: Paper presented at the
DRUID Society Summer Conference 2009, Copenhagen Busi-
ness School, Copenhagen, Denmark, 17–19 June 2009
Yarime M (2010) Understanding sustainability innovation as a social
process of knowledge transformation. Nanotechnol Percept
6(3):143–153
Sustain Sci
123
Author's personal copy
